Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Former Prisoners of War (Compensation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Mr. Denis MacShane: This morning we shall talk about an historic problem that is still with us—that of compensation for British soldiers and civilians who suffered in the far east during the second world war.
The subject has been discussed in the House previously. We should remember the great efforts of Sir Bernard Braine, now Lord Braine. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his seat because he made a deeply moving and effective speech on this subject last year.
Fifty-five years ago this weekend, Japan plunged the Pacific into a terrible war. Fifty thousand British men and women, soldiers and civilians, were taken into a dark captivity, in which many perished under the brutal treatment meted out to them by the Japanese authorities.
Those who survived have horror stories to tell which they will take to their graves; I shall not dwell on those today. Instead I want to salute the spirit of courage that kept those men and women—some of them in the Gallery today—alive. We are proud of them because they are British, but they spoke for all humanity as they refused to succumb to their torturers and jailors. They suffered not only because conditions in the prison camps were poor, but because the Japanese military-industrial complex made British prisoners and internees work as slave labourers for the giant zaibatsu, as they are called—conglomerates such as Mitsubishi, Nissan and Nippon Mines, which are household names today, but which in the war worked round the clock using slave labour to turn out tanks and Zero planes and the sinews of war for Japan.
The courage of those people during years of filth and brutality shows that it is under the worst of conditions that the human spirit, to quote Byron,
appeals from tyranny to God.
Today perhaps about 10,000 of those men and women are still with us, but in the final stretch of their lives, which were wickedly usurped at the moment of their youth. Still, after more than half a century, no one has offered them adequate reparation for what they went through. The art of saying sorry and making good is an essential part of human existence. It applies to individuals, companies and Governments.
The German Government have sought to say sorry for the evil carried out in their name during the war. About DM80 billion has been paid to victims of Nazi brutality. German companies have accepted their responsibilities for the use of slave labour.
Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Swiss ambassador, who revealed to me that the Swiss Government accept their responsibility on the issue of Nazi gold and the money placed with Swiss banks by Jewish victims of the holocaust.
Even the United States has accepted that it did wrong by the Nisei—the Japanese-Americans who were roughly interned in the USA after 1941. President Reagan authorised the payment of about £14,000 to each surviving Nisei internee.
Japan, alas, has done none of those things. It still, in my view, refuses to make or show sufficient repentance or adequate reparation for the crimes carried out by its soldiers, officials and businesses in the war.
I emphasise that today's political and business leaders in Japan carry no responsibility for what their predecessors did half a century ago. I visited Japan many times before entering the House. There are great similarities between our two island countries, offshore of a great continental mass, and a strong bond of friendship has grown between Britain and Japan, which must be nourished. I admire Japan's modern business skills. The goods the Japanese make have enriched the world, and they have exported not weapons of destruction but wonderful artefacts that help us to communicate with and learn from each other.

Mr. David Winnick: Just as the present German authorities are in no way responsible for the Nazi killings during the war and have wholly dissociated themselves from those killings and paid compensation, for what it is worth, surely the same applies to Japan? In no way were the present Government involved with the criminals who ran Japan in the war, so it is all the more ironic that no apology has been forthcoming from the Japanese Government.

Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is quite right. In Japan there is a new quest for understanding and debate among the younger generation of historians, politicians and researchers, who are examining what went on in those years; I am sure that Japan is slowly coming to terms with the events of the 1940s.
There remains what I might call a pebble in the shoe of full and warm relations between Britain and Japan—the refusal of Japan publicly to offer adequate repentance or to make adequate reparation for the crimes committed against our citizens in the emperor's name. There have been debates in the House before on this issue, and the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Sir Kit MacMahon have made efforts to move things forward; but each time those efforts have foundered on an unwillingness to move beyond the confining boundaries of diplomatic treaties and international obligations.
Behind what I might call this realpolitik is the fear—justified or not—of the politics of money and trade. Japan is a most valued inward investor in this country and an important free trade partner of the United Kingdom. But the right of our citizens to fair treatment comes before the profits to be made on this or that deal.
We are asking that Japan finally come clean, unequivocally apologise and accept its obligations to pay reparations to individuals. Whether they are paid by the Japanese Government or by Japanese companies such as Nissan or Mitsubishi is neither here nor there—that is for them to decide. It is no accident that the Americans refer to "Japan Inc"—because of the seamless web of bureaucrats, business men and politicians who collectively represent Japan.
In financial terms compensation could be set at the same level as that received by the American Nisei. Such payments to the 10,000 survivors here in Britain would not even be noticed on the balance sheet of these giant Japanese multinationals.
It is not the money, however, but the act of saying sorry that remains the most important element—sorry individually, sorry clearly, sorry in the same way as Willy Brandt sank to his knees in the Warsaw ghetto 25 years ago to apologise for German crimes. The Japanese must say sorry publicly, clearly and honestly.
The Japanese will quote the 1951 San Francisco treaty of peace between our two countries which excludes further reparations. Pacta sunt servanda: treaties must be observed. That is one of the watchwords of diplomats and international lawyers. But there is nothing in the treaty to prevent Japan or the relevant Japanese companies from accepting their responsibilities today. International law is opening its doors to claims by individuals against Governments, so I hope that the Minister in his reply will make it clear that if Japan refuses to listen to today's appeal from the House, our embassy and officials in Tokyo will support by all possible means the legal actions being undertaken by claimants in the Japanese courts.
I wonder whether the Foreign Office fully understands the extent to which international law has been transformed in recent years. In 1951 it was a basic tenet that only states, not individuals, had rights in international law. Today it is accepted that one particular class of individuals—those who have been victims of crimes against humanity—have rights against the states whose official apparatus perpetrated the crimes. The other important advance has been to declare that states can never obliterate their own crimes against humanity.
Crimes against humanity such as the Japanese committed against British soldiers and civilians in the 1940s are so heinous that they engage the world's conscience sufficiently to attract what is called universal jurisdiction. I believe that, if they decided to do so, the United Kingdom Government could apply to the International Court of Justice in The Hague for a declaration that Japan has a continuing obligation at international law to compensate victims of its crimes against humanity; and this duty is not affected by the 1951 treaty.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the Dutch suffered a similar fate in the Dutch East Indies? A Dutch uncle of mine died as a civilian in the camps and some of my aunts and cousins were badly treated. The Netherlands therefore

shares our concern, so I hope that our Government will work closely with the Dutch Government on the hon. Gentleman's proposals.

Mr. MacShane: That is a most important and relevant point. Other member countries of the Commonwealth such as Canada and Australia face similar problems too. I ask the Minister to make it clear on behalf of the Government that he is willing to examine the legal remedies which I believe are open to the United Kingdom Government. I have sought and obtained counsel's opinion on this matter—that of Mr. Geoffrey Robertson QC, one of our most distinguished lawyers with a high international reputation in this field—to the effect that legal avenues are indeed open to the Government, who no longer have to accept the 1951 treaty as the last word.
I do not however believe that this matter should require the intervention of lawyers. The Japanese Government have already accepted their responsibility in one regard. With the help of private business, a fund has been set up to make financial reparations to the so-called "comfort women", those sad Asian women who were forced to be prostitutes for the Japanese forces of occupation. The whole House will find it distasteful if British women, in the forces or civilians, as well as British soldiers are considered by the Japanese Government to be less worthy of fair treatment than women shipped from Korea, Formosa or the Philippines and forced to be prostitutes for the pleasure of Japanese soldiers occupying Asia.
In the end this is about honour. Taking away a person's honour makes him or her less of a man or woman. Fifty years ago the Japanese sought to take away the honour of British men and women—but they failed. Instead, Japanese firms and soldiers lost honour themselves because of the way in which they treated their prisoners. The House may not realise that the Japanese army, which fought its previous major 20th century war against Russia in 1905, was held up around the world as a paragon of decency for the way in which it treated its prisoners. So the tradition in Japan is not of brutality. Something happened in the 1930s and 1940s, and the Japanese army lost all honour because of its brutality first in China in the 1930s and then elsewhere in Asia after 1941.
Today we welcome a strong, prosperous and democratic Japan which must play its full part as one of the world's leading democracies. But until Japan removes the stain of dishonour from its past by making restitution, morally and financially, to the British men and women it so mistreated, it will find it hard to have its self-defence forces accepted as comrades in arms in the work of securing freedom and democracy around the world—or to be seen as a candidate for a permanent seat the UN Security Council.
Of course the passage of time washes away most things, but as long as these men and women remain with us, and for as long after that as their memory does not perish, the dishonour that Japan brought on itself by its behaviour during the war will not fade away. Now is the time to make good. There is a good Japanese word, gimu, meaning obligation or duty. Today I—and I hope the whole House—call on the Japanese, particularly Japanese firms, to honour or fulfil their gimu towards the British survivors of their crimes against humanity.
The Japanese also have a saying that the nail which sticks out gets hammered down. Not this nail; not in this House of Commons; not as long as the survivors of those


prison camps are with us. This issue will not go away until Japan accepts its full responsibilities and makes full amends for what was done in the emperor's name 50 years ago.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has done well to raise the matter. My remarks will be brief.
The recovery of Japan is one of the most striking achievements of any nation since the war—not just the rebuilding of towns and cities and the amazing economic performance to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but the creation for the first time of a durable democracy. Politicians as a class are no more popular in Japan than in Britain, but those who know modern Japan, which includes all Members present in the House this morning, cannot doubt that Japan now has a foundation of democracy.
As Japan has grown on that foundation, so has modern Britain's friendship with modern Japan. Like many others, I have been struck by the way in which contacts, co-operation and friendship have grown, company by company on the commercial side, profession by profession—all the professions—and individual by individual. There remains, however, a hindrance—a bar—from the past.
For the people who lived through it, the past is terrible beyond telling. It is not a remote past for them; it is still vivid in their lives, as our postbags and surgeries tell. It is vivid, too, in the lives of all those to whom they tell their story.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It should be emphasised, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, how many of the victims of those years have just begun to tell their stories. In a constituency such as mine, where so many were interned with the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, only in the past year or two, thanks partly to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, has the story begun to emerge. A new generation in this country has become aware of how bad it was and therefore supports the bid for recognition from Japan of what happened.

Mr. Hurd: That is true and is borne out by my own experience.
On the legal side, I was always advised, and I tested the advice, that it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to demand as a legal right from the Japanese Government more than the 1951 peace treaty provided, because the British Government of the day accepted that compensation. I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham that this should not be a matter for lawyers, although I am aware of the case that representatives of the prisoners of war have lodged in Japan.
Whatever the legal buttress of the 1951 treaty, that cannot be regarded as enough to close the chapter. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of State do not regard it as enough. Both have been active in seeking more. There has been progress—more, perhaps, than the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
I welcome what the then Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Murayama, wrote to our Prime Minister before VJ day. On VJ day itself, Mr Murayama made a statement

expressing his feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for the damage and suffering caused to the people of many countries, including the former prisoners. That was agreed beforehand by the Japanese Cabinet. In addition, Mr. Murayama set in train various schemes for contacts to help families of former prisoners.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Rotherham that that has not been enough. It needs to be followed by more substantial action. Various efforts have been made by individuals and by the Government in recent years. and I had a part in them in my time. As a result, I know of the sensitivities and difficulties on the other side. I have some understanding of why it has been so difficult for the Japanese Government, individuals and institutions to take the steps that the hon. Gentleman recommended.
I believe that there might be a role for one or more of our service charities—for example, the Royal British Legion—to act as an intermediary or channel for funds made available by Japanese organisations. I have not expressed that thought before in public, but I believe that it deserves to be further examined.
I know the sensitivities and the difficulties of finding a way, but as a strong friend and supporter of modern Japan, I believe that the search—it is now an urgent search—for a way to bring about more substantial action must continue.

Mr. David Winnick: I am very pleased that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), a former Foreign Secretary, has added his support to the campaign about which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) spoke in opening the debate.
It is important to remember that there is no anti-Japanese sentiment on the part of those of us who continue to campaign. There is no anti-Japanese lobby. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: Japanese politics has been in the limelight to a far greater degree than the British Parliament, but, like other hon. Members, I appreciate that the Japan of today and of the past 50 years is very different from the Japan of the 1920s and 1930s. The last war was not the start, but the continuation, of Japanese aggression against China and other countries and peoples in that part of the world. Terrible crimes were committed before the second world war. That was the Japan of yesterday.
I therefore find it, as I said in an intervention, all the more difficult to understand why—leaving aside compensation—the present Japanese Government should hesitate to express the fullest dissociation and apology that are required. After all, the German Government have repeatedly made it clear that they dissociate themselves from the criminals who ruled Germany for 12 years.
One of the many reasons why I am speaking in the debate is the fact that one of my constituents, Stephen Long, was a 19-year-old soldier who was taken prisoner, like so many others, in Singapore. He says that he still suffers from nightmares because of the way in which he, like so many other prisoners of war, was treated. It is important to recognise that the Japanese treatment of our and other allied prisoners defied all the conventions of the time. They treated British and allied prisoners of war like slaves or semi-slaves.

Mr. Barry Field: It is not widely appreciated that the Isle of Wight Burma Star Association


has two Victoria Crosses to its name, and the last VC that was awarded in the second world war. The dispatches nominating the soldier for the VC went down in the plane with Wingate in the jungle, and the VC was only awarded some years after the war had ended.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the lack of bitterness on the part of soldiers who served in that dreadful war was well exemplified when the Burma Star Association in the Isle of Wight put on an exhibition of all the paraphernalia of Japanese torture, among other things. The angst of the former prisoners of war increases as they grow older. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) said, if action is not taken urgently, the problem will die.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, which applies also to my constituent, who was only 19 years old at the time. He was involved in the construction of the railway that prisoners described—with every justification—as the "railway of death". I could recite endless accounts of what occurred, but I shall only quote briefly from what Mr. Long told me and the local press. The article states:
One form of torture Mr. Long can recall most vividly was something known as 'water treatment', an ordeal he was forced to undergo on a number of occasions.
It involved him being squeezed into a box 10 foot tall but no more than 15 inches square made out of bamboo poles. For eight hours he could not move and any hope of going to the toilet was forgotten as it was just not possible.
When he was dragged out of the box"—
Mr. Long was no exception among the prisoners—
the Japanese soldiers forced a hosepipe into his mouth and pumped water into him before laying him on the floor where they proceeded to jump up and down on his stomach.
Is it any wonder that Mr. Long suffers nightmares? Is it any wonder that my constituent, like others who suffered the same brutal treatment, requires a full and unambiguous apology from the Japanese Government as well as compensation? As to that compensation, Mr. Long says:
It's not the money that's important—even if they paid me £14 million I still wouldn't be able to forgive them".
I believe that the time has come for the British Government to put adequate pressure on the Japanese Government. No doubt in his speech the Minister will express his sympathy to those who suffered at the hands of the Japanese—I expect nothing less of a Minister of the Crown—and he will probably describe the various efforts made by the British Government on behalf of ex-prisoners. However, I believe that more is required, and that is the essence of today's debate.
I do not challenge the fact that the British Government and the Prime Minister have made representations to the Japanese Government, but I think that more pressure should be applied. The Government must try to persuade the Japanese authorities that, apart from anything else, it is in their interests to do what we ask. We are not engaged in an anti-Japanese campaign or lobby, but we are concerned about the way in which our fellow citizens were treated. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, there are not many of them left. Before

they die, they should receive an apology from the Japanese—that is more important than the money for which they are asking.
I pay tribute to the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association of Great Britain, which is conducting a fine lobby in the best traditions of British democracy. I am sure that the association is pleased that we are having this debate today. Let us send a message from both sides of the House—I do not think that any divide is likely—that the British Parliament is concerned about the issue. The fact that the events occurred more than 50 years ago is neither here nor there: our fellow citizens were treated in an awful manner for which there is no justification.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has initiated the debate, supported by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney. Our duty now is to ensure that we do all that we can to persuade the Japanese Government to act as they are honour bound to do. If the debate serves that purpose, it will have been very useful.

Sir Anthony Grant: I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Some 51 years ago, I went to Singapore and Malaya with the British Army. I think that I may be the only serving Member of Parliament to do so—although I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) served in the Royal Navy in the far east at that time.
We were stationed in Selerang barracks near Changi. We had fewer than 1,000 troops in our regiment, but there were the traditional soldiers' grumbles about crowded conditions and so on. We then discovered that the Japanese had impounded not 1,000, but 15,000, allied prisoners of war in those same barracks. They lived, starved, suffered and died there. The horrors of Changi were all too plain to see. It bore no relation to Colditz and other German prisoner of war camps, which had roughly conformed with the Geneva convention on war prisoners. Japan never signed that convention.
Following the surrender, I befriended a young Army officer a little older than myself who had been captured at the fall of Singapore. He weighed six stone—at the time of his capture only a few years before he had weighed 12½ stone. He told me that Yamashita, the Japanese commander in chief, had addressed the captive officers. He said that, as they had allowed themselves to be captured, they must be bad officers—otherwise they would have committed suicide. He said that therefore they would be treated no better than Japanese fighting troops: water and rice each day, their heads shaved, and beatings if they misbehaved. However, conditions were far worse than Yamashita anticipated, as we discovered at the war crimes tribunals held soon after the war.
Within a year of his release, my young officer friend died as a result of the diseases, the malnutrition and the merciless beatings that he received at the hands of his captives. The Cambridgeshire regiment from my area suffered especially in that campaign. The 18th division was rushed to Malaya as a reinforcement force. Although ill-prepared, the men valiantly faced Yamashita's jungle-trained, more experienced troops but they were soon overwhelmed. Many died in action or in prisoner of war camps, and others died after their release as a result


of the inhumane treatment that they had received. A dwindling band survive today, some of whom are my constituents in Cambridgeshire.
I have visited Japan on many subsequent occasions and I admire its remarkable economic recovery and the ingenuity and work ethic of the Japanese. I welcome their investment in Britain, bringing jobs and expertise to our country, and I respect their return to democracy after the dreadful wartime regime. However, I know that within the hearts of the modern Japanese lies shame about past events. They now have an opportunity to expunge the record and, in oriental terms, to save face.
I call upon the great Japanese companies to demonstrate their humanity as well as their business acumen. Let them compensate freely and generously the sadly declining band of service men and women who did their duty and who suffered so terribly in one of the most ghastly and barbaric campaigns of the last war.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who opened the debate, on providing an opportunity for honourable Members to discuss a very important issue.
The hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) referred to the suffering of prisoners of war. Because of the nature of their internment, that suffering did not end upon their release—in many cases, it has continued to affect their lives and those of their families. That is why we must debate their plight today.
I have pursued this issue on behalf of the Burnley and District Far Eastern Prisoners of War Association for nearly 10 years. I have written countless letters on the subject and raised the matter in numerous ways. However, the association believes that it has not received the response to which it is entitled both from this country and from Japan. The Japanese Government must try to make amends for what occurred all those years ago. No one can put right what happened, but at least we should try to ensure that recompense is made.
On 17 June 1993, I wrote to the Japanese ambassador to this country about the compensation paid. Of course the equivalent sums of £76.50 and £48.50 were worth a lot more in 1951–52 than today, but even then they were derisory amounts. We must remember that, when the San Francisco negotiations took place, Japan was in a very different situation from its position today as one of the world's wealthiest nations.
I put it to the ambassador:
Would it not be seen as a gesture of goodwill if your nation, which is now one of the wealthiest in the world were to offer these former prisoners a further sum of compensation as an ex gratia payment?
The final paragraph of his reply to me said:
Although I would not contest the merits of your suggestion of a goodwill gesture, I do not believe that additional compensation is a feasible way after such a long interval. The world belongs to the next generation and it is our belief that Japan's efforts in promoting further cooperation between our two countries in various fields will far better serve the interests of the peoples of our two nations.
We all want to see Japan play a major part in the world of today and the 21st century, but that does not mean that it should not attempt to try to put right what happened all those years ago and give some compensation.
The Far Eastern Prisoners of War Association wrote to me on 4 December 1995, and I shall quote a couple of the points that it made to me.
Whilst we were encouraged to have this apology we did not accept it as an unequivocal, full blooded apology. We feel it was half-hearted and superficial. Moreover, it was not backed up by promise of reparations and we feel it has done little to allay the strong feelings in this country, both of the people of the United Kingdom generally and of Ex Prisoners of war in particular.
The association emphasised:
Perhaps you need to have been a prisoner of war under the Japanese to know this.
That is the point. The association then made the point:
We therefore go back to our plea that the British Government acknowledge the unfair 'settlement'… received and make amends for the failures in the Peace Treaty by allowing token payments to be made".
The association believes that Japan should respond, but if the Government are not prepared to make Japan do something, it believes that our Government should at least make some recompense.
In fairness, I have to say that the Prime Minister has written to me several times on this issue, which he takes very seriously. Indeed, the Minister who will reply to the debate kindly met representatives from Burnley to discuss these issues in his office on one occasion. In his letter of 10 January 1996, the Prime Minister wrote:
I am sorry that Mr. Stanworth's Association do not feel happy with the responses they have received to date about the Japanese apology and compensation … As regards an apology, Prime Minister Murayama wrote to me before VJ Day expressing his profound remorse and apology for Japan's actions which inflicted such deep scars on so many people, including the prisoners of war. Mr. Murayama publicly repeated this apology in his statement on 15 August; this statement was agreed beforehand by the Japanese Cabinet, and was therefore made on behalf of the Japanese Government.
The Prime Minister might accept it, but it is very difficult to judge whether it is a full-hearted response. At the end of the day, the people who really have to judge whether it is satisfactory are not hon. Members, but those who suffered and paid a price to fight for Britain's peace, democracy and freedom during the second world war.
Last year was significant in that we commemorated VE day and VJ day. I hoped then that the Government would be able to secure some response from Japan to try to make amends and resolve the problem. It is not just a question of finance. The people with whom I deal are not talking of huge sums. They just want some response, some token, some whole-hearted apology to say, "We were wrong. We apologise. We hope that you can now enjoy the last days of your life in peace and comfort with your families." That is what we want to see.
I hope that the Government will respond in the way that we would like. I hope that former prisoners of war will get the response that they believe is acceptable, and ultimately from the British Government and Japan.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Because this problem is very easy to resolve but seems unlikely ever to be resolved, it is terribly important that the House of Commons gives the right message.
First, although we are well aware that the views of people who suffered in the camps—and, indeed, those in Japan whose families were exterminated, for example in


Hiroshima and Nagasaki by mass bombing—will probably never be able to change effectively, it is desperately important that the people of Japan and the authorities are aware that those who support this campaign do so in no feeling of hostility whatever to Japan and its people. When we consider Japan with other countries in south-east Asia and the world, it is clear that Japan has a commitment to democracy and integrity and to family values of which most other nations would be very proud. It is desperately important that we make it clear to Japan and its people that we have huge admiration for the standards that they have advanced.
The second simple point that we must make is that, on the basis of our interpretation of international law—whatever that might be—it seems that Japan and its people have absolutely no obligation to make the concession that we seek. There may indeed be a moral issue, but so far as legal issues are concerned it seems to most of us that the 1951 treaty resolved that problem.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman represented a Scottish constituency for many years in the House. The Scots prisoners who have gone into this are in Scottish law, and Tom McGowran and others, who have been very active in this matter, have come to the same conclusion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of international law and Scottish law and of the way in which he campaigns for his constituents, but the 1951 treaty is clear and precise on the issue of general compensation and a general statement. It is important that we accept that and admit it.
The third point that we should make abundantly clear to the Japanese is that Britain is not always convinced about hypocrisy of words. We heard, for example, from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who introduced this debate, about the massive concessions, words and sympathy issued by the German Government, but we should also be aware that the situation there was rather different. Germany was exterminating millions of Jews and gipsies in its pursuit of European integration without democracy.
Hypocritical words do not in any way resolve problems. Because I have respect for Japan and its people, making some concession and gesture would be the appropriate way to resolve the problem. So long as it is unresolved, the firm relations and friendship between our two countries will not be confirmed. I hope, therefore, that the House, on the basis of friendship and respect for Japan, not on the basis of claiming legal entitlements, will simply say that we hope that the Japanese authorities will be able to do what is appropriate for those who suffered so appallingly during the war.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I shall be brief. I have not spoken about this subject in public before, but I do so in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), whom I congratulate on choosing this subject for debate.
My uncle died in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. He was a young man, the only son of a farmer, who did not have to go to war. He could have stayed, because sons of

farmers were exempt at that time. He was flown from West Kirby into Singapore after Singapore had already fallen to the Japanese. He survived in a Japanese prisoner of war camp until about three months before the end of the war. I cannot imagine what happened to him during that time. He was a very fit young man; he had been captain of his local football team in a small town in mid Wales. I do not think that he had ever been out of the area, so to go from there into the area in which he was captured must have been a terrible experience.
I understand from people who were with him that my uncle was very brave and stood up to the Japanese. Clearly, he stood up for quite a long time to survive until about three months before the end of the war. Both his parents died within two years of his death. I believe that they died from grief. Nothing could compensate them or the family for that death.
Those who survived were the victims of awful physical and psychological torture. We cannot bear to think about such horrors and when we hear about them, as we have in the debate, we want to cast them out of our minds. As victims of torture, those people still suffer many years later. Some of them have never recovered.
I met some Japanese people not long ago when I visited my uncle's grave in Jakarta in Indonesia. Every time I meet Japanese people I tell them how I feel and that I have some difficulty putting what happened to my uncle out of my mind. I am obviously not anti-Japanese because as an internationalist I could not possibly be anti any nation.
For those who survived the very least that we can expect is some kind of recognition of their suffering and some compensation. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and by other hon. Members.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: As hon. Members have said, this is a short debate, so I shall be brief. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), not simply because of his kind remarks about a speech that I made in the House some time ago, but because he has brought the subject back to the House at a timely moment.
In the speech that I made last year, I said that the impetus of the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war had one good effect: that the Japanese had apologised. Although I accept that that was not wide ranging enough to satisfy those whom we represent, in their terms it was a marked departure from anything that they might have contemplated.
The Japanese had been brought to that pass in two ways. First, they apologised because the approach of the 50th anniversary had put an international spotlight on the way in which Japan had behaved in the last war. Secondly, they apologised because the Prime Minister had made it his business to make it clear to the Japanese Government that, although the long-standing position of the British Government—that there was no legal way in which the Japanese could be pursued—would continue, there was a continuing moral obligation. The Prime Minister's interest, even by way of moral representations, was a departure from anything that had been done by any Government of either political complexion since the war, and it had a marked effect.
The difficulty is that, when the 50th anniversary had passed, the issue went off the boil. The hon. Member for Rotherham has performed a valuable service by bringing it back to the House. I hope that the issue will once again be highlighted. At the weekend, someone said to me that people in Japan do not listen to our debates. However, I was heartened and surprised to hear after I made my speech last year, in a Chamber that was not as well attended as it is today, that it had received a great deal of publicity in Japan. There is not the slightest doubt that the Japanese public will be aware that the debate is taking place. I hope that the shortness of the speeches will help them to see that the case that we are presenting is in no sense a condemnation of the Japanese of today.
The language may be slightly different from that which the hon. Member for Rotherham used, but it can be said that today's Japanese have no guilt. However, they have a responsibility, because a country can never shake off its responsibility for actions carried out in its name by its people's predecessors. Responsibility remains, but guilt is an entirely different matter.
What would we like to see emerge from the debate? It has already been said that the former soldiers and civilians—it is important to emphasise that civilians suffered too—are not primarily concerned with compensation. Any lawyer knows that compensation is worked out on the basis of the sum that would put the parties in the position they were in before the event if that event had not happened. One has only to state the classic principle of compensation to realise that no possible sum could ever compensate the people we are discussing. Compensation has its role, but to a limited extent.
The National Association of Ex-Prisoners of War, to which I pay tribute, recently asked me to become its unremunerated parliamentary representative. From my conversations, I have noted the continuing anger at the indignity inflicted on those ex-prisoners of war. If the Japanese Government could bring themselves, even now, to make an unequivocal statement of sincere regret for the indignity that was forced on those people, it would go a long way. How can that be taken forward? There are two actions that the Minister might feel able to take.
Until fairly recently, I had taken the view that the Government were entirely right to say that the 1951 treaty made legal redress a closed book. But—it is an important but—the hon. Member for Rotherham graphically reminded us that, in a sense, international law is about never saying never. Increasingly, it is becoming an instrument for delivering what the international civilised community of nations wants. I say without levity that I do not always approve of the way in which international law applies in some sovereign countries, but that is a different point.
It might have been tenable five or 10 years ago, or even two years ago, to say that international law has made this issue a closed book, but that is no longer true. It is bizarre, but the Minister's briefing from officials will probably say, "This matter is basically at an end as far as legal redress is concerned." If, in the light of the debate, the Minister felt able to go to the Foreign Office and say positively that he wants a root and branch reconsideration of whether the present state of international law is such that the aspects of morality that we are debating might even now be brought within some legal process, that would be a marked step forward.
In terms of practical politics, if the Japanese Government realised that there was, after all, a forum before which even now they might be called to account, it might begin to concentrate their minds. However, there is no such international forum. I hope that the Minister will ask for that study to begin.
The hon. Member for Rotherham and other hon. Members have been fair in drawing attention to the Prime Minister's efforts to make to the Japanese Government a case that was more than a mere formal expression of opinion. In the light of the debate, I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will again go to the Japanese and say that this matter will not go away, that it is not a matter for a 25th or a 50th anniversary but a continuing irritant, an inhibition to the proper establishment of relations between our two countries.
Some people may say that such matters are all in the past and that we have completely re-established our relationship with Japan. They may say that this is just a debate between a few Members which takes place once a year or from time to time. But the world is getting smaller, and if Japan wants finally to be taken into the full community of civilised nations it will not be enough for it simply to export goods to us and be friendly towards us.
It is certainly not a question of asking the Japanese people or their representatives to say that they are guilty because of what happened in the past. One of the ties that binds civilised people is the admission that sometimes responsibility continues long after guilt has expired. Until the end of time, Japan will bear a responsibility for acts that were carried out in its name, and it now has to set about discharging that responsibility.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing this debate and on the very measured tone with which he introduced it. The same tone has been adopted by all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, which demonstrates the House at its best. There is a tremendous unity of purpose on this subject—to which, despite the many years that have passed, the House repeatedly returns. Among the people whom we represent are the victims of the atrocities that undoubtedly took place during the war in the far east.
I think that every hon. Member comes across those who still continue to suffer because of their experiences during that time. I have a close personal friend who is the child of a Japanese prisoner of war. She told me that, when she reached important events in life—such as her 19th birthday, for example—her father would tell her, "At 19, I was in a prisoner of war camp in China." When she was a little older, he would say, "That is the age at which I was beginning to make my way out of that hell." That woman's father, whom I know reasonably well, is almost untouched by bitterness, which is astonishing, given the undoubtedly severe treatment that he and others received.
We have seen a similar lack of bitterness in the House today, and those who have spoken have not tried to do so in any crude or jingoistic manner. I do not think that any of them thought of making an attack on Japan or on the Japanese people. I welcome that. Japan is a modern country and, although we may differ slightly on interpretation, Britain's relationship with it is very strong.
Like many hon. Members in the Chamber today, I have visited Japan and found the Japanese people of this generation to be polite and easy to deal with in many


ways. Japan would like to increase its international influence, and we should welcome its emergence and role in the world as a force not only for economic and political progress but for the protection of human rights. We share those goals.
We must realise, however, the tremendous debt that we—certainly my generation—owe to the British citizens who suffered in those years. Time cannot expunge their memories, even if it can heal their physical wounds. We should realise the strength of feeling among those who were the direct victims and sufferers, and be sympathetic to calls for compensation for the survivors of the camps.
Since 1951, the common view of all UK Governments has been that the treaty of Japan, which formally ended the war, settled the compensation terms. Article 14(a) of the treated specifically recognised that
Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war".
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, those reparations were worth some £76 10s, with an extra £3 for those who were forced to work on the Burma railway; in current money, that is about £1,000. I think that most of us would agree that £250 a year is scant compensation for those who suffered perhaps for four years in those prison camps.
As hon. Members have said in the debate, it is not simply a matter of compensation levels. It is important to remember that the same treaty also stated:
the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering".
That point has been made by hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), in previous debates. Behind the wording of the treaty is a realisation that complete reparation would have caused massive damage to the attempt to re-establish Japan as a democratic nation in the post-war world, as the setting of such compensation levels would have been punitive.
Today, however, Japan is the among the world's economic super-powers, and the world is aware of Japan's economic might.

Mr. Pike: Is it not also true that no one, not even the Japanese, was able to forecast how the Japanese economy would grow? Japan has enjoyed tremendous economic success, which could not possibly have been foreseen in 1951.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even at the dawn of the 1950s, after the devastation of its economy during the war, Japan still faced huge reconstruction problems. That point is certainly valid. The treaty was drawn up and signed in a very different era, in which people could not foresee Japan's current position.
The 1951 compensation agreement must be recognised—I shall deal in a moment with the point about its legality and the legal options—and Japanese and British Governments, of different political persuasions, have agreed that Japan has, at least legally, discharged its obligations under the treaty. However, if we believe that the provision of compensation is part of a genuine process not only of expunging a financial debt—the hon. Member for Teignbridge is absolutely right to say that no debt can

ever be adequately recompensed financially—but of accepting collective national responsibility, even if that does not entail the guilt of modern Japan's citizens, the levels were unsatisfactory. I hope that the British Government will continue to press the Japanese Government to accept that there is a moral obligation, even if the legal obligation technically has been expunged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned possible recourse to the International Court of Justice. I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to that point. There are some long-running cases in the Japanese courts, sponsored by the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association, which are expected to end in 1997. Those proceedings would be assisted if an application were made to the International Court of Justice, and if that court ruled that there was a case for individuals to apply for compensation under Japanese law. That would provide at least a moral shot in the arm. I hope that the Minister will tell us what advice he has been given on that proposal, which would perhaps advance the legal options. The House should be able to consider the proposal.
What about the role and responsibilities of modern Japan? All hon. Members welcomed the action that has been taken, such as the sincere apologies offered by former Prime Minister Murayama. However, the rest of the world has always been cautious about asking the Japanese to face openly the issue of its guilt for its war crimes. Many hon. Members have expressed strong feelings on the issue, but there have been various constraints, including those of Japanese society and of our economic and diplomatic relations with Japan.
It is important to recognise that Japan is not a monolith and that Japanese society does not have a single view on the issue. It would be helpful for the House to be aware that the Government Workers Union—the largest trade union in Japan—last year gave its support to the court proceedings of the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association. The union argued that it was necessary for Japan to recognise, as a nation, its responsibility to the former prisoners of war and urged the Government to accept the consequences.
I should like to quote briefly the remarks of Hiroshi Abe, who was sentenced to death at the end of the war for war crimes. The sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and he was released after 11 years under the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1957. Last year, he spoke about his guilt, saying:
The construction of the railway"—
he was a supervisor—
was in itself a war crime. For my part in it, I am a war criminal.
He went on to say:
Japan, as a nation, has not properly considered the issues surrounding its role in the war. Japanese people do not know and do not care what happened. Before the Japanese people can think about apologising to other countries, they will have to acknowledge to themselves their responsibility.
It is not true that nobody in Japan is arguing the case that we have heard in the House this morning. It is important that we do not accept the illusion that there is a Japanese monolith that will not consider what happened during the war or Japan's role. Recognising the existence of those views in modern Japan, it is incumbent on us to continue at Government level and all other levels to ensure that the voice of those who suffered in the prison camps—the voice that the House represents—is heard in


Japan, enabling Japan to come to terms with its responsibilities and guilt from that era. As I said earlier, we recognise that the Japanese Government have met their legal obligations in full, but we hope that they will follow the logic of Mr. Murayama's apology, made some time ago, by accepting the moral case for a solution that is more acceptable to those men and women still alive who were held prisoner.
Today's debate has been serious and measured, addressing constructively the issues of compensation for prisoners and Britain's relations with modern Japan. It is worth placing on record the fact that the House has behaved responsibly this morning. However, I believe that many share my view that such serious crimes can never be forgotten or expunged. While I believe that there comes a time when it is pointless to continue to punish individuals, nations are not in the same position. A nation has an accusation of guilt permanently against it until it chooses to expunge that accusation by proper recognition of the level of depravity, suffering and crime against humanity that took place. Until those issues are recognised, the criticism of Japan as a nation remains.
I do not say that in a mood of hostility towards the Japanese people. The generation of young Japanese growing up is no more responsible for the crimes that took place during the last war than the generation of young Britons able to claim to be victims of those crimes. Individuals do not retain that guilt, but nations do. Because we are nearing the time when many of the surviving victims will no longer be with us, the time is coming when the opportunity for recognition will shortly cease to exist. The House is doing the country a service by raising the issue. The survivors who continue to raise the issue with Members of Parliament also do the nation a service by making sure that their cause is not forgotten.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I commend the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for raising this subject today, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. We have been reminded that this Saturday will be the 55th anniversary of the outbreak of the war in the Pacific. It is right that at such a moment we should remember the terrible suffering that the war brought to millions in Asia, and in particular the sacrifices made by our countrymen and women so that we could now enjoy the benefits of peace and prosperity. This morning, moving tributes have been paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the heroism of those who fought and who endured captivity in the far east. I gladly add my voice to the tributes to that courage and achievement.
I believe that we shall all long remember the extraordinary emotions aroused last year by the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of VJ day: the proud veterans who marched down The Mall past Her Majesty the Queen; the moment when His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh left the stand to join them; the intense sadness of those who bore in their hearts memories of friends who did not survive; and the sense shared by many of us that those who considered themselves a forgotten army had at last been paid the tribute that was their due. We who have enjoyed the peace could not help being moved by the courage and stoicism of that wartime generation.
Today our focus is on one particular group; a group who probably suffered more brutal and cruel treatment than any other allied service men—the prisoners of war of the Japanese. I shall not repeat the accounts of the horrors to which many were subjected. Hon. Members have today reminded us with some graphic and appalling details of what was done to those prisoners. Nothing can excuse it. It is hard to believe that men could have been treated in so callous a fashion or that they could have endured it.
We must remember too that the prisoners were not all service men or women. Whole families of civilians, including women and children, were interned in prison camps in all the areas occupied by the Japanese. They, too, deserve to be remembered and honoured; they have memories of suffering which are difficult for us to imagine.
About a quarter of the service men taken prisoner in the far east did not survive. That in itself is a tragic indictment of the conditions of their captivity. Those who survived were often marked for life by their experiences. We have all seen the photographs of the sick and starving men who were found and liberated in the camps. They returned from their appalling ordeals to a Britain that had its mind on other things—on all the problems of post-war Europe. There was no counselling available for them, nor was there psychological support. They had to fend for themselves. In some ways that may have been another hard blow.
It is difficult today to re-create in our minds the conditions and emotions of that time. The allied war tribunals sentenced many of the most brutal camp guards to be executed, out of revulsion at the atrocities perpetrated on the prisoners. However, when it came to working out a peace treaty and settling the issues of claims and compensation, the allied Governments found that Japan had been shattered economically. Japan was stripped of its empire, and its overseas population was repatriated. The economic miracle was still a dream for the future.
In the discussions about a peace treaty, Britain insisted on some recognition of the sufferings of those detained by the Japanese. As a result, under the San Francisco peace treaty in 1951, the proceeds of Japan's overseas assets were taken in settlement of the claims. In Britain's case, those sums were distributed to the former prisoners and civilian internees in recognition of the unique hardships that they had endured. No other British prisoners of war received such payments.

Sir Michael Marshall: We are all, of course, totally in support of what is being said. My hon. Friend will be aware that the MOD is currently undertaking a fundamental review of former British prisoners of the Germans and the Italians. Can he confirm that the Foreign Office will do all that it can to ensure that, as far as possible, all prisoners of war are treated on all fours?

Mr. Hanley: It would not be right for me to address that point, because it is a matter for Defence Ministers. It is true that prisoners of war in the far east received different treatment from those in Europe and that reparations have not been made to prisoners of war in Europe, but perhaps that is due to the unique suffering endured by prisoners of war in the far east.
It is tempting, with all the benefits of hindsight, to criticise those who made the arrangements that led to the San Francisco treaty. The payments were indeed small in comparison with the magnitude of the sacrifices made by those who received them, but at the time allied Governments were concerned not to repeat the mistakes made after the first world war in Europe by making excessive financial demands on a broken country.
Whatever the historical rights and wrongs, the 1951 peace treaty continues to define the legal position on compensation today, and successive British Governments have accepted that the question of compensation is legally closed. The same is true of all the other allied Governments who signed the peace treaty, including the United States, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. None of us is in a position formally to re-open the issue with the Japanese Government.
Although I would not dream of dealing with new arguments about international developments here and now without notice, I should say that our legal advice has been consistent. I will, however, write to the hon. Member for Rotherham—my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) mentioned them, too—setting out the Government's views on the relevance of the developments to which he referred. If there are developments that ought to be taken into account, let us study them.
In addition, although the Government cannot become involved in legal cases brought by individuals or organisations, our embassy in Tokyo has willingly helped ex-prisoners of war in Tokyo by offering advice and arranging meetings. We have also drawn to the attention of the Japanese Government the strong sympathy, emotions and support felt by many people here for the former prisoners, and, indeed, shall be sending a copy of this debate to them.
We have drawn the issue to the attention of the Japanese Government repeatedly and at the highest level. In particular, as has been referred to in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in the matter and raised it with successive Japanese Prime Ministers. His visit to Japan in September 1993 marked a new stage in the discussions that had been taking place. A new Government had just come into power in Japan, and they were more willing than their predecessors to face up to the issues.
The Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Hosokawa, for the first time gave a full and detailed apology for the treatment of British prisoners. He expressed his
deep remorse and apologies for the fact that Japanese past actions had inflicted deep wounds on many people including former prisoners of war".
He and the Prime Minister agreed to consider possible non-governmental measures that might help to resolve the issue.
The British Government, with much help from sympathetic individuals, developed a proposal for a non-governmental foundation that might be privately financed and contribute to the welfare and the meeting of other needs of former prisoners. A great deal of work was put into that, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). We hoped that there would be some practical benefits for those concerned, but

in the end, however, the project had to be given up when it became clear that there was no realistic prospect that private funding would become available.
The Government nevertheless continued intensive discussions with the Japanese Government in the run-up to the 50th anniversary of VJ day, which produced two positive developments. First, the new Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Murayama, made an official statement on VJ day, cleared with all members of his Cabinet, in which he expressed his "heartfelt apology" and "feelings of deep remorse" for the damage and suffering caused to the people of many countries, including former British prisoners of war.
Secondly, the United Kingdom was included in a £650 million programme—the peace, freedom and exchange initiative, launched by Mr. Murayama. The initiative's specific aims are to face up to the facts of history and to promote reconciliation. It will last for 10 years and in the United Kingdom we are funding a major historical project designed to examine both the dark and the good side of our past relationship and an extensive programme of exchanges. Under the initiative, there have already been a number of visits of reconciliation to Japan by former prisoners and their families. There is also a specific programme aimed at the grandchildren of former prisoners.
I am well aware that many former prisoners of war simply do not feel that the Japanese moves are sufficient; they do not feel that the Japanese have yet demonstrated clearly enough the sincerity of their apologies, and continue to seek compensation. The Government respect those feelings. We have the greatest sympathy with those who suffered such terrible treatment at Japanese hands during the war, so we have not closed the book on the problem. On the contrary, Ministers have on numerous occasions pointed out to their Japanese counterparts that emotions in this country continue to run deep.
I, myself, raised the matter in April when I visited Japan, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary did so when he visited in September. In responding to us, Japanese Ministers expressed their own sympathy and understanding for the former prisoners, but have not at this stage gone further than the measures that I have already mentioned.

Mr. Winnick: Although I do not expect the Minister for one moment to speak on behalf of the Prime Minister or in any way depart from his brief—I am not criticising him in any way—will he promise that today's debate will be brought to the Prime Minister's attention so that he understands the strong feelings on this issue on both sides of the House? There is no division whatever between hon. Members and it would be useful if the Prime Minister were made aware of Parliament's very strong feelings.

Mr. Hanley: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked for a copy of the debate. Putting aside any partisan feelings, the House must recognise the personal interest that my right hon. Friend has shown in the matter.
I mentioned that the Japanese Ministers to whom we have spoken have said that they will not yet go further than the measures that I have already mentioned, but we intend to continue our discussions with them. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, there are extremely


friendly relations between Japanese and British Ministers and, indeed, between Britain and Japan and their people. Ties go back to the 19th century and, even today, the 1902 Anglo-Japanese alliance and other historic links with Britain are remembered with affection in Japan. As has been said in the debate, Japan today is a very different country from that of the war-time period.

Mr. MacShane: Does the Minister accept that Japanese companies that were involved in the war have a role to play, since in Japan, unlike Europe, prisoners of war and internees were directly used as forced or slave labour? Today's Japanese companies could play some role in helping to solve the problem.

Mr. Hanley: I would willingly encourage any new initiative to encourage Japanese companies to help in that way.
Japan has changed. Its remarkable economic success has thrust it on to the world stage. It is the largest bilateral aid donor, the second largest contributor to the United Nations, a Group of Seven partner of the United Kingdom, and a country with which we have shared many interests and perspectives. We have benefited and continue to benefit from the very highly successful inward investment that we receive from Japan, which produces many tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom. Our modern relationship is different from what it was. The matter is not just one of economics. It depends on the values that, over the years, we have come to share.
I do not believe that there is any serious risk that Japan will revert to the path of its wartime militarists. Its post-war development has carried it on to a new, more productive route. I believe that Japan is trying to put the issue behind it. Japanese children are trying to live up to their past. They no longer avoid the issues of Japanese war-time behaviour in Asia and harsh treatments of prisoners of war. We must remember that the terrible crimes in relation to comfort women, which was mentioned earlier, has only recently been acknowledged and admitted.
The issues are sensitive and difficult and it has taken time for new attitudes to emerge. It is never easy to overcome the bitterness and shame of war, especially among those directly involved. But it is fair to say that the British Government have provided greater political support to our former prisoners than any of the other allied Governments have to theirs. As I have explained, we have been constrained by the legal position under the San Francisco treaty, but we have had a series of discussions with the Japanese Government at all levels, in an effort to establish what might be done to help the former prisoners and give them satisfaction. We have not done that out of vindictiveness or a desire to punish the Japanese for past crimes. On the contrary, we have acted out of a profound sense of sympathy for the former prisoners who endured such abominable treatment and out of a belief that it is only through confronting the facts of history that we can learn from them.
We have not achieved all that the former prisoners would like to see, but I believe that, thanks to our efforts and the efforts of many others in Britain and Japan, progress has been made and greater understanding achieved as a result. Our efforts will continue.

Sustainable Development

11 am

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am delighted to have this opportunity to introduce a brief debate on sustainable development. On anything other than a short-term view, the challenge of sustainable development—a hitherto unobtainable and, until recently, unsought goal—is the supreme issue for politicians all over the world. Unfortunately, democracies are better at responding to urgent problems that are likely to come to a head before the next election, usually a maximum of four or five years away. That is understandable, but disappointing, because the aim of sustainability is very real for all of us with children and grandchildren who will suffer if it is not achieved. A hundred years from now, when the small print of the Maastricht treaty will long have been forgotten, the happiness and health of billions of people will have been decided by the action or inaction of Governments today around the world on sustainability.
The importance of sustainable development is easy to understand. One does not need to be a scientist to realise that, if Britain continues to use countryside for new buildings and roads at the rate of almost 17,000 acres a year, we will concrete over the equivalent of the whole of Suffolk in 50 years. We are urbanising the countryside at an unsustainable rate. If we continue to prefer cars to other forms of transport, the level of traffic using British roads will double in 50 years—another unsustainable trend. If carbon dioxide emissions worldwide continue to grow at their present rate, thereby increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, significant and possibly damaging changes in the world's climate will occur before the end of the next century.
From the comfortable perspective of a rich western country, the tensions caused by unsustainable growth may seem remote, but it is precisely because in Britain, in Europe, in North America and in parts of the Asia-Pacific region we do not have to confront daily the problems of starvation and disease—and because we are no longer preoccupied with securing the basic essentials of life—that we should take the lead in examining where present patterns of consumption are leading. It is up to us to demonstrate how the world can convert its present obsession with economic growth, as defined in today's narrow terms, into a commitment to sustainable development which represents the only way to secure prosperity and a decent quality of life for the human race in the long term.
I should emphasise that I approach the subject in a spirit of optimism. I am confident that the urgency of the problem will soon be widely recognised, certainly within the next generation. Once that recognition has occurred, human ingenuity and resourcefulness are such that the real issues will be addressed and solutions found. I am also acutely aware of the danger of describing the issues in excessively apocalyptic terms. The remedies do not all necessarily lie in sudden, dramatic or costly changes of policy. Greater care in the use of irreplaceable resources is one absolute prerequisite. More co-operation between Governments and countries on global issues is another. Both those aims are justified in themselves, regardless of their role in securing sustainability.
We also need a better understanding and better measurements of the environmental consequences of economic activity. All those requirements can be met. We


should tackle the whole subject on a gradual, step-by-step basis with the "no regrets" principle uppermost in mind. Adopting that approach, I propose to deal this morning with four themes—three are largely domestic and one is global. Because of the supreme importance of the subject, I intend to seek further opportunities between now and the general election to return to it and to examine in more detail those aspects that time will not permit us to deal with today. I make no apology for that.
Sadly, the issues are not likely to feature prominently in the general election in the spring. Indeed, there is little evidence that the Labour party has thought about them at all, but they are of great relevance to our constituents and to the welfare of those future generations of British people with whom the House should be concerned.
As it happens, next year is the fifth anniversary of the Rio Earth summit. The United Nations is marking that with another Earth summit, two months after the Commission on Sustainable Development meets in New York. Britain should be in the lead, as it was under Margaret Thatcher, in taking forward environmental initiatives and in influencing international policy. There is now a real opportunity for the House to generate ideas, to engage the attention of the public and the media and to devise solutions to problems that affect all parts of the globe.
I shall consider first land use here in the United Kingdom. I welcome last week's Green Paper, "Household Growth," as a worthwhile document which deserved a better response than it received from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who, I regret to say, displayed his usual ignorance and shallowness. Only a party leader as utterly uninterested in the environment as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) could entrust such a crucial portfolio to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
I especially welcomed the acknowledgement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in response to my intervention last Monday, that the present rate at which rural land is converted for urban use is unsustainable. An average of 17,000 acres of rural land has been urbanised annually since 1981. The challenge is to stop that gradual but unacceptable transformation of our much cherished countryside without completely freezing the evolutionary process that historically has created such a rich tapestry in villages and towns alike. A limited degree of new development in the countryside is an integral component of any thriving rural economy, but it can all too easily expand to the point at which it inflicts serious environmental damage.
The Government's target of meeting half of all new housing needs by building on land that was previously developed is excessively modest, not least because that ratio has already nearly been achieved. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested raising that target to 60 per cent. I urge him to set a goal of meeting three quarters of all new housing need from recycled land—brown-field sites—within four years. No doubt that would cause some concern to the building industry, whose preference for green-field sites on grounds of cost, convenience and saleability is well known, but the potential to use more brown-field sites exists. Derelict land can be made good. Outdated, empty offices are ripe for conversion to residential occupation,

and there are countless other examples. To exploit that potential more fully, the planning system and the market must both be harnessed.
In relation to out-of-town shopping developments, I applaud the Government's emphasis on a sequential process within the planning system. That requires consideration of alternative sites, first within town centres and then elsewhere in existing built-up areas, before approval of a green-field site can be given.
The same approach can be applied to housing. Planning guidance should emphasise the fact that consent will not be given for housing on any green-field site unless the applicant can demonstrate that all available alternatives—including the conversion of existing premises and the reuse of brown-field sites, even those that contain derelict or contaminated land—have been considered and are genuinely unsuitable for reasons other than mere cost.

Mr. David Nicholson: Raising the proportion to 60 or 70 per cent. on a national basis may be practicable, but to do so for every shire county might be difficult. I speak of Somerset, which I know reasonably well, whose relatively small towns do not have the brown-field sites that exist in the great conurbations. Yet it is to places such as Somerset—and, indeed, Suffolk—that people are trying to move their businesses and homes.

Mr. Yeo: I accept that it may not be possible to apply the target at micro-level to every district planning authority, and that to achieve the 75 per cent. target that I suggested we would need to consider a broader distribution of the way in which housing need is met, but only by imposing a national target can we ensure that the effects trickle down through the system and provide enough pressure and incentives for developers to consider ways of meeting housing needs other than the use of green-field sites.
I fully understand that demand from consumers is now strongly oriented towards the rural areas. That is unsustainable in itself, and what I have suggested would enable us to reorient the demand a little. If we approached planning matters in that way, we could make the planning system a genuine guardian of land that needs protection.
That should be backed up by a levy payable on any new green-field development, which would encourage developers to consider the alternatives more carefully. For example, a levy of £60,000 per hectare would generate more than £200 million a year even if the present rate of green-field development were halved. It would increase the price of a new house on a quarter-acre green-field site by £6,000, thus making alternative property relatively more attractive. To sweeten the pill, part of the proceeds could be applied to restoring derelict land.
Much is already happening to make our transport policy more sustainable. Railway privatisation, of which I have long been an enthusiastic supporter, is the first and long overdue step towards rebuilding a golden age of rail, which should reverse the long-term decline in the railways' share of passenger and freight movement.
I welcome the Budget changes in fuel and vehicle excise duties, which give a valuable environmental tweak to the taxation system for cars and lorries. However, the changes need to be taken further if the increase in carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles is to be reduced


sufficiently. Other measures are also needed to cut congestion, pollution and overcrowding on certain roads at peak times.
The publication in March of the excellent document "Indicators of Sustainable Development" drew attention to the relative fall in the cost of car use compared with rail or bus travel. Doubling the annual real increase in petrol duty to 10 per cent. would at least redress the balance slightly. Higher rates of vehicle excise duty for high-consumption cars, a change that could be introduced on a revenue-neutral basis by lowering the duty on more economical models, would encourage fuel efficiency.
At the same time, the recent decline in cycling could be reversed by allowing expense claims to be paid, tax-free to the recipient and at a rate comparable to that paid for cars, for the use of bicycles for business purposes.
The problem of congestion cannot be overcome by building more roads, which simply encourages extra traffic. Instead, a limited road pricing experiment—for example, charging users of the M25 during rush hours—should be tried. The technology now exists for road pricing to be operated without complicated or time-consuming vehicle checks.
Rural dwellers for whom a car is an unavoidable necessity would not be penalised. Their roads would not be subject to any pricing. But drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles who insist on using key roads at peak periods would certainly pay more. The prize would be less pollution and congestion. and much less demand for additional roads as better use of the existing network was made by spreading demand throughout the day.
My third concern, energy efficiency, is a subject in which the "no regrets" principle applies par excellence. It unites environmental and economic goals. It is astonishing that so little attention is now paid to energy efficiency both by individual householders and by the public sector.
Households are responsible for 16 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom. We must make all householders aware of what they can do to cut energy costs. One way, as I suggested in my ten-minute Bill last summer, would be to include an energy rating in all house surveys carried out for purchasers when mortgages are arranged.
Few people buy a home without being aware of its council tax band, yet hardly any buyers know how energy-efficient their perspective homes are, despite the fact that fuel costs almost always far outweigh council tax payments. The anomaly could be corrected by simple legislation, and from the results of a comprehensive survey of major lending institutions that I carried out after introducing my Bill it is clear that the lending industry would be perfectly happy to see such legislation.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will know of the great disappointment felt last week when the Budget did not cut the rate of VAT on energy-saving equipment to the 8 per cent. charged on domestic fuel. I acknowledge his Department's achievement in winning extra resources in a difficult year for the Energy Saving Trust. Regrettably, however, there remains an anomaly in the VAT system, which now offers an incentive for energy consumption rather than energy saving.
I must ask why there has been so long a delay in producing the energy efficiency figures for the Government estate. According to the Library, the latest

published data relate to the year ending March 1994. That is disgraceful. The targets set for Government Departments were modest enough, and it is inexcusable that progress towards them is not being regularly and publicly monitored. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Government do not regard those targets as important.
I must mention global warming, an issue to which I hope to return in the new year. Global warming is no longer simply a possibility: it is now beyond doubt that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity.
For us in Britain, the consequences will not be a happy transformation of our present weather pattern into an agreeable Mediterranean climate. Temperatures will certainly rise, perhaps by 1 deg C over the next 50 years. But sea levels will also rise, storms will become more frequent, and both flooding and drought are likely to increase in some parts of Britain. So not all the changes will be beneficial. Many will have far-reaching implications for crop yields, river flows and demand for water.
The consequences for some other countries will be even more dramatic. Furthermore, even if the world succeeds in stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases, some of the trends, such as rising sea levels, may continue for several generations.
Britain has played a distinguished role both in achieving wider understanding of climate change and its consequences and in influencing international responses. We are on target to achieve the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000—indeed, we may well improve on that target—but we should now look beyond 2000. The last meeting of the parties to the UN convention on climate change agreed in principle that legally binding targets should be set for the years after 2000, but did not decide what those targets should be.
Time is not on our side. If the long-term aim is to limit the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases to a level double that reached in the pre-industrial age—in other words, to double the level that has prevailed throughout almost the whole of the earth's history—a substantial cut in carbon dioxide emissions will be needed, perhaps a halving of present levels of emissions. It is simply not credible to suppose that that will be achieved by present policies. Britain should be in the forefront of initiating debate both about the targets for the next century and about how to reach them. Our voice in this debate will be heard more clearly if we build on all the existing measures, and those that I have suggested in my speech, while considering others.
The possibility of a carbon tax has become caught up in the arguments about whether any taxes should be imposed by the European Union on member states. That is a pity, because a carbon tax has, in principle, much to recommend it. Its potential contribution to the process of curbing carbon dioxide emissions deserves to be examined on its merits, and these should be reconsidered. There are other possibilities, notably the use of tradeable quotas. Like a carbon tax, tradable quotas have the immense advantage of providing flexible market incentives for environmentally responsible behaviour. They reward people who find cheaper and more effective methods of reducing emissions.
There is much more that could be said on this subject, but I would like the other hon. Members present in the Chamber to have a chance to contribute to the debate. My purpose today in raising this issue has been to try to give sustainable development a higher parliamentary profile. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will assure us that my suggestions will at least be carefully considered.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has sought and won the opportunity to debate this important subject, and I overwhelmingly agree with his comments. He was right to say that the problems can be tackled, and that they will be tackled above all by harnessing people's ingenuity. The irony is that most of the problems that we face are the results of previous ingenuity in overcoming previous problems. The hunt for warmth, shelter, food, easy transport and communications have led to new problems, but exactly the same ingenuity will help us to overcome them. There are ways in which the Government can have a hand in encouraging the exercise of that ingenuity.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk referred to four key themes, and I shall seek to follow briefly the points that he has made. The first—land use—is perhaps the area in which the impact of environmental problems is most immediate to ordinary individuals in this country. They see it in their view, in the traffic jam in which they sit and in the increasing asthma attacks suffered by their children, which are linked to air pollution.
In that context, the issue of household growth is probably the one that will be highest on the agenda of many politicians as we come to the next general election. In my part of the world, people are greatly concerned about the high level of proposed building in the countryside. I am not sure whether they make the connection with the wider environmental issues touched on by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, but it is an issue that they will be taking up with their local Member of Parliament.
In this context, sustainability versus large-scale household growth is a central dilemma as we approach the end of the century. The problems will be compounded by the fact that the demand for housing and the readily available sites that we might wish to see developed do not often occur in the same place. Urban areas are often enthusiastic about new development on brown-field sites, but demand is likely to be strongest in more rural areas.
Furthermore, one-person households are expected to make up 80 per cent. of the expected 4.4 million new households. It is therefore inevitable that there will be an increase in the number of houses being converted into flats and bed-sits. That raises further social issues that I should like to see the Government address through a national licensing scheme to sort out the appalling living standards in much of that kind of accommodation. The net benefit of tackling that problem will be that more people might be willing to live in that kind of accommodation, particularly in urban centres. That will regenerate those centres and help stop the continuing erosion of our countryside.
The first step in tackling the problem must surely be to use what we have. I am disappointed that so little mention has been made of the thousands of empty properties

across the country—some 800,000 in England alone. I should like the Government to provide sufficient funding to make better use of that wasted resource, rather than the small and piecemeal funding that they provide at the moment. It must be madness to contemplate building millions of new homes without first making an effort to bring into use all those empty buildings.
The next step must be to encourage development on previously developed land. Last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that in future he wanted the proportion of new houses built on brown-field sites to increase from 50 to 60 per cent. That was a welcome statement, but without any real incentives I fear that it is unlikely to happen. It is suggested that the Secretary of State has looked at, and may even favour, introducing a green-field tax of the sort outlined by the hon. Member for South Suffolk to promote brown-field site development. I should like to see that step being taken, and I should have liked to see it in the Budget. I hope that such a tax will be introduced in the future. It is a policy that the Liberal Democrats have long advocated, and I hope that it will be specifically introduced during consultation.
Several attempts have been made to introduce taxes based on the increase in the value of land that results from the acceptance of planning applications. Such betterment taxes have in the past been justified on the grounds that as the community creates a fortuitous gain for the landowner by granting planning permission, it should therefore share the benefits by cutting taxes that currently fall on the things that we do want, such as local jobs and businesses. That could help pay for direct community costs, such as improved public transport, schools and waste recycling, and could provide compensation payments for people directly affected by the decision. The case for such a tax is unarguable, and the sooner the Government introduce it, the sooner we will see a shift towards developments in brown-field sites. The financial incentives will be there, rather than merely the rhetoric and pleadings of local councillors or national politicians.
Incidentally, the market—provided that it is given those incentives, and provided that we structure the tax and planning systems appropriately—will to some extent provide solutions for those problems. I doubt, however, that the market will find solutions for social housing needs, and I regret that Government have again cut the provision of social housing. That has a particular relevance to the development of green-field sites. Local authorities have now been told that they cannot negotiate for an element of affordable housing on sites smaller than 40 units. In my county—and, I suspect, in most rural areas—very few developments are likely to be built on a larger scale than that, particularly in local villages where there is the greatest need for, and the greatest shortage of, social housing.
Councils are being prevented from using capital receipts for such building, and now they cannot negotiate with the developer. If we are to see development on green-field sites, let us make sure it is properly balanced and that it addresses the needs of local communities, rather than simply the needs of people who move out to retire or to commute—precisely the kind of green-field site development that we do not want. I have spoken at some length on that matter because it is probably the most immediate to politicians.
I agree strongly with most of what the hon. Member for South Suffolk said about transport. There is a strong argument for an increase in petrol duty, balanced by incentives for those driving more fuel economic and less polluting vehicles and by changes in the tax system, especially that for company cars, which encourages people to drive larger vehicles unnecessarily and to make unnecessary journeys to maximise their tax benefits. That system is nonsense and can be changed.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned bicycles. I would also urge the Government to consider tax relief for individuals who are provided with public transport, in the form of rail season tickets, for example, through their company.
The hon. Gentleman is also right about energy efficiency. I would love the requirement on housing surveys that he suggested to be imposed. I entirely agree with the policy of reducing VAT on energy-saving equipment and my party included it in our Budget proposals. However, I believe that, had there been a vote on the issue last night, it would certainly have been won. I regret that there was no vote, and I believe that the Labour party made a mistake in its motion by not picking that issue, which could have been won, and picking instead an issue for which there may be greater political support but on which it was always likely to lose. I hope that we shall have such a vote in the coming months or, even better, that the Chancellor will propose suitable amendments during the proceedings on the Finance Bill.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk that global warming is the biggest single threat that we face. It is such a threat because it is the most difficult problem to overcome, as well as being the most serious. Our current lifestyles depend on excessive use of resources, but an even worse problem is the fact that, as 80 per cent. of the world's resources are currently used by only 20 per cent. of the population, if the rest of the population even moves towards standards of life similar to ours, regardless of whether they adopt best environmental practice—which is in itself unlikely, given the costs that can be associated—the current targets set internationally and by the Government will not even begin to contain the situation.
It is important to make people understand that hose problems are a priority. I was extremely pleased to hear what the hon. Member for South Suffolk said about carbon tax, which I have consistently advocated. Tax should be targeted on those energy systems which create the pollution, and other taxes should be cut to make it politically acceptable. For instance, we should cut employers' national insurance—the tax on jobs—to encourage people back to work and to encourage companies to employ people rather than machinery, and we should cut VAT so that people do not have a big net increase in their bills.
All those points concern environmental taxation in one way or another. That was a theme of the speech of the hon. Member for South Suffolk and it has been a theme of mine. There is a huge opportunity for a reforming Chancellor to change the tax system to benefit the environment and individuals and to help people to create warmer homes while using less energy, to get about without creating traffic congestion and pollution, and to be housed without destroying our environment.
By taxing differently, rather than simply increasing taxes, we need not impose a higher burden overall. The Chancellor who introduces such reforms will not only set the agenda for the next century but will be both a reforming and a popular Chancellor.

Mr. David Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on raising an important subject that deserves more attention and more far-sighted debate in the House. He is building on his excellent work as a Minister in the Department of the Environment, and I am glad to see that his interest in such matters has not abated since his return to the Back Benches.
The most urgent problem facing our communities in the next few months is the housing requirements that are being directed at counties throughout southern England, but before dealing with that I want to touch on transport and energy conservation, which were mentioned by both my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk and by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor).
The only dissenting letters about the Budget that I have received in the past week were from pensioners on fixed incomes, living in the countryside and dependent on their cars, who objected to the rise in petrol prices. I have had a good half dozen such letters. I had to explain that we and the Opposition parties are committed to raising the price of petrol continually through taxation.
The hon. Member for Truro and I have had some discussion in the past about the Liberal proposals for counterbalancing tax on petrol. I face a dilemma, and the hon. Gentleman faces a practical problem, because single people or pensioner couples on limited incomes in the countryside will tend to have older cars, which unfortunately, whether small or large—and they are often small—are pretty environmentally unfriendly; that is a shame in itself, but it also means that those people cannot benefit from the discrimination in favour of unleaded petrol.
The other dilemma arises because people in the countryside who have children will almost certainly need a rather larger than average car, especially if they give lifts to their children, to other people's children or to their neighbours. I would like more to be done to help communications in the countryside by encouraging neighbours to help each other by giving lifts. The idea that everyone can be encouraged through tax measures to have small and environmentally friendly cars is therefor subject to these practical difficulties.
I entirely support the encouragement of bicycle use. Taunton, the main town in my constituency, is ideally suited for more use of bicycles, and the Liberal council, with my full support, has done a great deal to encourage it in recent years. There is all-party support in my constituency for the development of cycle tracks and I am delighted to say that we have had considerable financial help from the Government.
On energy conservation, I do not want the Government—any Government—to levy different rates of VAT on different goods and services, as we got away from that in 1979, much to the benefit of small businesses. I therefore do not support the idea of reducing VAT on energy conservation materials to 8 per cent. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk,


however, that there should be more support through grants for energy conservation services, as there is much work to be done and I believe that the backlog of work has created a waiting list. We are pleased with the modest increase announced in the Budget, but we shall not relax the pressure for more resources for such work.
The most important issue for my constituents and for most people in southern England is new housing development. Through a conjunction of population planners in London, the South West regional planning conference and others, Somerset was originally threatened with 50,000 new houses over the next decade or decade and a half. Pressures and negotiations may bring that down to about 45,000, but it is still too many. Such development on green-field sites would have implications for the water table and water conservation.
In and near my constituency, it is feared that the sort of development that we face over the next decade will cause the town of Taunton to spill across the M5, swamping the villages of Henlade, Ruishton and even Creech St. Michael, and bringing them into a Greater Taunton. I would greatly regret that. Just over my constituency border, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has referred to the danger that Bridgwater and North Petherton will join to create a Greater Bridgwater. Few people in the local communities want such development.
We have run up against difficulties with the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because sites such as Longforth farm to the north-east of Wellington and Monkton Heathfield between the village of that name and the M5 are grade 1 or 2A agricultural land. MAFF has objected to development on such sites even though they would be less intrusive green-field sites and probably appropriate for development in terms of communication and in every other regard. We have a dilemma, although I think that we may be making progress with MAFF.
There is better scope for the sensible development of villages. That would help the village services such as the garage, the post office, the pub and the school which the excellent Local Government and Rating Bill that we are putting through the House is trying to sustain. But there is no point in developers building 1960s or 1970s style large family houses on the edge of villages that have entirely different traditional architecture. The Prince of Wales has taken important initiatives on that. I hope that planning guidance will emphasise that we must develop more sensitive architecture for new village developments.
In my part of England, there are a number of disused airfields dating back to the second world war, some of which may be suitable sites for new villages. There may be scope for closing some of the military bases, where the ground is already developed, on Salisbury plain and turning them into villages. We can show some imagination and initiative to avoid intruding on the green-field sites that we and our constituents are anxious to conserve.
I want to spell out some shorter-term and some longer-term proposals to tackle the problem. They may go against several of the rhetorical and philosophical assumptions that Conservative Members have previously accepted—or at least espoused over the past 20 years. If we do nothing to curb demand for new housing and curb

only supply, which is what our county councils and constituents are asking us to do, we will price people artificially out of communities; there will be an artificial house price boom.
We must consider greater use of empty properties, but they tend to be in urban areas and large conurbations. There must be greater use of brown-field sites but as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, that is less help to those of us with rural or semi-rural counties to look after.
I want no more intrusion on school playgrounds. We debate the resource problems of schools, but I am glad that even the urban schools in my constituency retain excellent playgrounds, usually right next to the school, which is a great benefit. When I was at a good grammar school in Lancashire, it was a mile and a half walk up the hill and down the other side to the playing fields.
I am sure that we can have sensible development, especially if emphasis is given to smaller-scale development. If we are moving towards a society in which more people live alone, we must consider the greater development of flats rather than large family houses.
Some of my other points are for the longer term but they must be considered. First, we must discover what we can learn from other countries, especially the Netherlands. My sister has lived there for 20 years. It has restrictions on to whom people can resell their houses, which must be offered first to people in the local community. The Netherlands, more than any other country in Europe, needs to use every acre of its land effectively because the supply of land is so limited. In the long term, the free market in the sale and resale of housing may have to be considered.
A perverse benefit of the recent recession was that the boom in the south-west has been curbed while the north of the country, for the first time in 100 years, has excellent economic development prospects. That may reverse the process of the past century whereby people have come from the north to seek employment and set up businesses in the south. However, the south-west has been the traditional target for people seeking to retire from the midlands, London and, indeed, all over the country. So, secondly, we may have to consider restricting the right of people to move from one part of the country to others when they retire. I might say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) that I know about that issue only too well because my mother lives in north Wales. Sooner or later, we may destroy the very facilities that attract people to the south-west in their retirement.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: A less draconian but more immediate measure would be to allow local authorities to require planning permission when a home is changed to a second or holiday home. That forces families to find other accommodation, possibly new-build accommodation, elsewhere quite unnecessarily. Such a measure would not stop such sales altogether but it would mean that the same planning requirements were necessary as for changing a home to a business.

Mr. Nicholson: I agree that that should be considered. All those matters, although they go against the philosophy of free markets and individual freedom that the Conservative party in particular has, for the past 20 years,


laid great store by—and which are indeed valuable social and economic objectives—may have to be questioned in the interest of conserving our heritage. There is widespread support for that.
Thirdly, we may have to consider curbing commuting by people who live 100 miles from where they work. That process causes constant building on green-field sites and adds to transport pollution. One way to start curbing it would be by substantially restricting all-day parking in cities and conurbations so that parking facilities are for local people who come to shop, not for those who commute from 100 or 150 miles away. That objective would have implications for rail travel which the House should consider further.
Fourthly, measures to counterbalance the break-up of families have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The segments of sundered families are requiring facilities for visiting children. Grandparents get sundered from families, live elsewhere and do not get support from them. It is not for politicians to preach, but I regret that we have not done more in recent years through fiscal, legal and social measures to try to halt that distressing process.
In addition to the environmental consequences that we are discussing, such separations also result in a great deal of unhappiness, misery and educational failure. Indeed, a lot of evidence shows that such family breakdown also leads to delinquency and crime. Greater success in holding families together could be an alternative to some of the more radical measures that I have suggested should be considered.
It is absolutely right that the House should debate such important matters, and look not just six months or even five years ahead, but 10 or 20 years ahead. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am glad to make a brief contribution in this important debate on sustainable development, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on initiating it. He has highlighted the subject at an extremely important time, and I am glad that he intends to raise the matter again in the new year. I would like to co-operate in the process to ensure that the issue is given the prominence that it deserves.
This is an important time because 1997 is the year of Rio II. At the same time important meetings will be held of the conferences of the parties to the climate change and biodiversity conventions. The purpose of Rio II is to consider the progress that has or has not been made on Agenda 21 since 1992. The House of Commons briefing document—we get a lot of excellent stuff from the House of Commons Library on sustainable development and associated matters—states:
Putting Agenda 21 into action will be vastly difficult.
I have no doubt about the difficulty of the task and the seriousness of the challenge, because sustainable development implies a major cultural as well as an economic and political shift. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk that the subject needs to be approached in the spirit of hope and creativity. We can celebrate the fact that the human race now has the capacity to move towards sustainability, which it was

never able to do before, because of developments in technology and the enormous expertise and knowledge that is available to us.
Rio II needs to be taken seriously as an international occasion. One such indication would be an advance announcement that heads of state would attend. I would very much welcome a statement from the Prime Minister that he or the successor incumbent of his office will attend Rio II at New York in June. The Prime Minister was the first world leader to announce that he intended to attend the original Rio summit and that influenced the decisions of other world leaders. It is essential that the United Kingdom should take a lead this time, too.
The United Kingdom Government have taken a lead on climate change and greenhouse emissions. The achievement of stabilisation by the year 2000 has been fortuitous in part, nevertheless it is something to he pleased about. Earlier this year, the United Kingdom Government gave an important lead at the Berlin summit in establishing the targets that should be set. I hope that the Government will continue to do that and will confront the powerful vested interests that are trying to prevent such targets from being set.
The targets must be ambitious, because the current ones are hopelessly inadequate, except of course for the targets advocated by the Association of Small Island States. It has called for serious reductions because its people stand most to lose as a result of climate change.
Any discussion of greenhouse gas reductions must he considered in the context of global equity. There is a disgraceful and profound inequity in energy use. Currently 20 per cent. of energy is used by 80 per cent. of the population and vice versa. That must change. Those reductions must judged in the context of global equity and the idea of the global commons. That implies looking seriously at the question of sustainable consumption in the developed world.
The transport issue simply cannot be bucked, whether it is road or air transport, because we are witnessing a significant increase in the use of hydrocarbons, and therefore the production of carbon dioxide. Attempts to come to terms with changes in transport use imply far-reaching changes, for example, ultimately, a more decentralised pattern of production, distribution and consumption. In that context, I specifically urge the Government and the main Opposition party to support, at least in principle, the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill, which is currently before the House. We are not kidding ourselves that it will get on to the statute book. It does, however, offer an opportunity to debate traffic reduction.
On greenhouse gas emissions, we must take far more seriously the potential of renewable energy. The current target for the year 2000 is 1,500 MW, which is almost trivial. It is useful, however, and I am glad to note that the Government recognise the importance of renewable energy. One should compare, however, the 1,500 MW with the 2,000 MW capacity of one power station at Pembroke were it to start to burn orimulsion.
It is good that we are beginning to move away from the notion of an inherent conflict between environmental protection and economic success. It is essential that we do that, because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no such conflict in reality. We certainly need a new definition of what we mean by economic success. We need to adopt different indicators, such as the index of


sustainable economic welfare, as a measure of economic success. Economic success does not always imply economic growth, and certainly not undifferentiated economic growth. The notion of sustainable development is important because we need to bring together the themes of environmental protection and economic success. That term has been mocked sometimes but we need to address it absolutely seriously and explore its important implications. The central aim of Government policy must be to integrate social welfare, development and employment opportunities within the context of global equity.
When we talk about environmental protection, we should also talk about environmental enhancement. That means increasing and strengthening the opportunities for biodiversity, not just protecting the reduced level of biodiversity which we have currently achieved.
I commend to the House a useful booklet entitled, "The Politics of the Real World", which has been produced by the Real World Coalition. The purpose of that publication is to influence debate during the general election campaign. The hon. Member for South Suffolk was pessimistic about that and he does not believe that it will feature in the campaign, but it certainly should given the crucial issue that it addresses.
It is not the intention of the Real World Coalition to influence the result of the election, but the agenda for debate during the campaign. Sustainable development should be at the heart of that debate. Not everyone will agree with everything that the booklet advocates, although the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) will find that it contains at least some ideas that he would commend. I was extremely interested to note his call for the need for intervention in certain areas that are regarded as sacrosanct for the free market.
Not everyone will agree with everything in that booklet, but it is the best attempt that I have seen to spell out what the British Government could do in certain specific areas towards achieving real sustainable development. At the heart of that, and the key instruments to enable that development to be achieved, is a combination of public investment and tax reductions. I suggest that Labour Front Benchers should study that document carefully and integrate, if not all, at least large parts of it into their programme for government.
I hope that this is the first of many debates on sustainable development both before and after the election—although, in a sense, all debates about economic policy and other areas of policy should also be debates on sustainable development. It should not be regarded as a separate issue, but treating it as such is at least a way of getting the debate going.
The initiative should come, not only from individual Members of Parliament, but from right hon. and hon. Members on the Government and Opposition Front Benches. It would be welcome if the main Opposition party—whichever party that might be in a few months' time—used one of its main Supply day debates as an occasion for discussing this subject in greater depth than we have managed today. The hon. Member for South Suffolk has started something extremely important and I wish both him and the rest of us well in advancing this important agenda.

12 pm

Ms Joan Ruddock: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on obtaining this important debate. I, too, believe that sustainable development is fundamental, both to our national and our global futures. The hon. Gentleman said that it is the supreme issue for politicians—I could not agree more. All the ideas that he has outlined this morning deserve consideration and we shall look closely at this debate as we continue to formulate our policies for Government; but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will get a dusty answer from the Minister, because sustainable development is not something that the present Government have been practising.
Let me remind the House of the definition of sustainable development. We accept the definition coined by the Brundtland commission in 1987 and believe that it is a useful working definition. According to the commission, sustainable development is
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
For Labour, crucial to that concept is the fact that it brings together social, economic and environmental considerations. Sustainable development is about improving people's quality of life and not just their standard of living.
Clearly, the Rio Earth summit in 1992 was a landmark for sustainable development. Within a few months of the next general election, we shall celebrate the five-year anniversary of Rio, which other hon. Members have mentioned this morning and which will be an extremely important date for the new Government. We expect to be that new Government and to play our full part in attending Earth summit II and meeting our international obligations.
Fine words and conventions are not enough. The sorry fact is that the Government's record on sustainable development is totally inadequate. They like to trumpet their green credentials, but the truth is very different. For a start, the Government are failing systematically to conduct environmental appraisals of their own policies. It is extraordinary that no Government Department has yet been able to provide any evidence that it is conducting such appraisals, despite the fact that the Department of the Environment has been advising Departments to do so since 1991 and that it was a White Paper commitment.
The annual report of the Round Table on Sustainable Development, published in April this year, recommended that
all Government departments should ensure that environmental considerations are fully taken into account when policies and programmes are determined, and should have procedures for ensuring that compliance with those requirements can be assessed and published.
The Environment Select Committee published a report on the Department of the Environment's 1996 annual report, which stated:
we wish to see in next year's Annual Report a much fuller discussion of how the Department has pursued its mission to integrate environmental concerns across Government.
It appears that the Government have so little insight into their failure to implement their own environmental appraisal policies that they have now commissioned independent consultants to examine the extent of the


problem. When asked about environmental appraisals conducted in 1995, the Treasury said that it had not carried out any such appraisals, despite major White Papers on competitiveness and deregulation, both of which have significant implications for the environment. The Department of Health said that the main environmental issues it faced were confined to purchasing policy. Even the Department of the Environment could not produce any evidence of having carried out an environmental appraisal on its own policies. If we contrast that with the 30 compliance cost assessments carried out by the Treasury in 1995, we begin to see how shallow is the Government's commitment to environmentally sustainable development.
I turn now to Green Ministers and the Departments' annual reports, both of which are supposed to contribute to sustainable development. The Green Ministers have had only seven meetings in five years, which hardly conveys any sense of urgency, and the Government have refused to publish the minutes of those meetings. Most departmental annual reports barely mention the environment, and information about the activities of Green Ministers and about departmental action to meet the commitments in the environment White Paper is notably absent.
The Government's evident lack of commitment to sustainable development is reflected not only in those complete failures to meet the promises of the White Paper, but in their many policies and actions in key areas, such as those to which the hon. Member for South Suffolk and other hon. Members referred and to which I now turn: land use, energy, transport, biodiversity and waste.
I shall not reiterate the points made by other hon. Members about land use, but say simply that the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) were both absolutely right to refer to empty homes. We have to make the best possible use of those properties that are already built, and a Labour Government will do that. We have clearly stated that we shall release the housing receipts, not only to enable new social housing to be built—primarily, of course, on brown-field sites—but to ensure that refurbishment takes place so that the waste of available and existing buildings is ended, once and for all.

Mr. David Nicholson: As I implied in my speech, the local authorities that are the main culprits in terms of maintaining empty properties are Labour councils—I am sure that both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Minister have the figures. What does the hon. Lady propose to do about such authorities?

Ms Ruddock: There is not a shadow of a doubt that concerns in respect of local authorities are mainly about Labour authorities—that is because most local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. That reflects our success in the elections, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That the authorities cannot put to good use the properties that are in the worst state of repair is entirely due to Government policies—it is the Government who have restricted local authorities and who will not allow them to carry out the necessary work. We have said clearly that we will enable authorities to carry out the work and that we will achieve that policy through the release of capital receipts.
The Government have failed to deliver a coherent and sustainable energy policy. We still lose more than 30 per cent. of primary energy in conversion to electricity and secondary fuels and in the distribution system. As we have heard, renewables account for only 2 per cent. of electricity generated. Perhaps most shocking of all is the fact that 8 million households cannot afford the heating they need and that cold-related illnesses cost the national health service £1 billion a year.
Tackling fuel poverty through improving the energy efficiency of homes would be the most truly sustainable move, but the Government massively cut the home energy efficiency scheme budget last year. Although they have put some of that money back and given some to the Energy Saving Trust this year, of which action we naturally approve, that in no way compensates for the cuts of one third of the budget last year. The changes announced this morning will not produce more warm homes—only a different mix. That will not maximise the effectiveness of the Government's scheme. The Government have failed to support domestic energy efficiency in this country at a level consistent with having a sustainable energy policy.
The Government have failed to respond to the recommendation of the Round Table on Sustainable Development that the gas and electricity regulators should work within a framework encompassing environmental and social, as well as economic, objectives. They have ignored the round table's fears that market forces alone will not be enough to promote energy efficiency—a key element of a sustainable energy policy. Obviously, the Government's narrow ideological commitment to privatisation and deregulation in energy, as in transport, is undermining any possibility of sustainable development.

Mr. Yeo: Will not cutting the rate of VAT on domestic fuel, as the Labour party proposes, give a massive subsidy to extravagant and wealthy users of energy? Given that it is Labour's first clear commitment on taxation, is that not about the most unenvironmental commitment that it could make?

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman knows that we believe that environmental protection must be consistent with social equity. VAT on fuel imposes greatest burdens on the poorest people—those who are already cold. We shall put measures in place to tackle the problem, and I shall mention those towards the end of my speech.
In transport, the sector where energy consumption is increasing fastest, the Government have failed to apply any of the principles of sustainable development. One in seven of our children suffer from asthma, exacerbated by traffic air pollution. Since 1970, car travel has almost doubled, whereas rail use has remained unchanged. Bus and rail fares have increased by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1974, whereas the real cost of motoring has fallen.
Many eminent organisations, including the Round Table, and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, have emphasised the need for change, but the Government continue with their failed and unsustainable policies. Their continued failure to invest in public transport was reflected, despite what Conservative Members say, in further cuts in last month's Budget, which undermine everything else that they may say about sustainability.
The Government have prided themselves on being a world leader in biodiversity, and we congratulate them on much that they have done, but the Department of the Environment internal appraisal report, Minis 17, reveals that the Government intend to scale down the biodiversity secretariat in only two years' time, and we understand that they do not intend to publish that report. Moreover, Minis 17 says that short-term business pressures tend to
squeeze out more strategic thinking and militate against cross-departmental working"—
further evidence of the Government's complete failure to integrate sustainable development into general policy making.
I am afraid that a similar picture emerges on waste, which is one of the most significant topics to tackle if we are to have sustainable development. The UK still has one of the worst recycling records in Europe. Ninety per cent. of domestic waste goes to landfill and only 5 per cent. is recycled. We are a long way from the Government's target that, by the end of the century, 25 per cent. of household waste will be recycled. It will fall to a Labour Government to ensure that that is achieved.
In conclusion, Labour in government has promised to put the environment at the heart of all decision making. Unlike the present Government, we intend to follow through on our promises. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has promised that we shall set up a parliamentary environment audit committee to scrutinise legislation for its environmental impact. We have undertaken to present an annual sustainable development report to Parliament, and each year we will publish a "green book" alongside the Chancellor's Red Book, setting out the environmental implications of Government policy. We will review the guidance to the Environment Agency to ensure maximum pollution control.
Several of Labour's flagship policies will contribute significantly to a more sustainable society, not least because we shall have a national energy strategy. We shall have a sustainable transport strategy, which means that we shall make that vital shift from private use to public use. We will try to ensure that people are provided with the means to get out of their cars, although we all wish to continue to own cars.
We will create an environmental task force to provide skills and training for unemployed young people and enable them to take part in enhancing our local and national environment. We will set up a national self-financing domestic energy programme, which will tackle fuel poverty, create jobs and reduce harmful carbon dioxide emissions. We have announced that it will be kick-started using millennium funds. We will increase the proportion of electricity generated from renewables to 10 per cent. by 2010 and 20 per cent. to 2025 and promote the increased use of combined heat and power.
All those measures will make up our more significant contribution to tackling the problems of global warming. They are only a few examples of how Labour's policies will put the principles of sustainable development into practice. We expect to have the opportunity, in only a few months' time, to show how much our policies will conserve the use of finite resources, reduce noxious and harmful emissions and protect our countryside. In so

doing, we plan to play our part in accepting the UK's obligations to the international community to introduce more sustainable development.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): This has been a wide-ranging and far-sighted debate. In the time left to me, I shall do my best to respond to the arguments that have been made, but if I do not have sufficient time I shall write to hon. Members about their points.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on securing the debate. He has a considerable background and great interest in the subject, and his selection of it has given the House the chance to look to the future. Generally, there have been far-sighted contributions from both sides of the House.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and other hon. Members who echoed the sentiment that the issue of sustainable development is extremely important for the future. Many hon. Members mentioned the special session of the United Nations General Assembly that will take place next year, following up the work of the Rio summit. I assure hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, who rightly called for greater international co-operation, that this country will play a full role in that international summit, following up the role that we played at the Rio summit.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) was right in his generous acknowledgment of the role that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has played in those matters, taking a special interest as Prime Minister in environmental matters. My right hon. Friend was the first world leader to respond to the invitation to the Rio summit. It was good that so many other world leaders followed in his wake.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North has shown a profound interest in environmental matters—not only in Wales but worldwide. I know that he is interested in biodiversity, which I mentioned briefly, one of the important issues that were discussed at the Rio summit and will be followed up next year.
I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that that is a very important subject, and that some Governments fail to treat the biodiversity convention with the seriousness that they apply to other parts of the Rio process. Effective international action is needed if we are to ensure conservation and sustainable use of the world's species and habitats. None of us owns the world; we have it on loan. As was rightly said, debate on that subject will affect future generations. We want to pass on to them the wealth and variety of species and habitats that we enjoy in this country and worldwide.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was very wide of the mark in her comments about biodiversity, because our plans for biodiversity are set out in our biodiversity action plan. We have set targets for 116 species and 14 habitats for the immediate future—with many more to come. That undermines everything that the hon. Lady said this morning. She should know that our biodiversity action plans are the envy of the world; people come here just to see how we are approaching the subject. If the hon. Lady wants evidence


of a neglect of biodiversity, she would do well to look at her party's draft manifesto, which does not mention it at all. Apparently her party's leadership does not consider it a subject worth contemplating.
I come next to climate change, an important Rio subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk touched—drought, floods, changes in sea level and consequent economic and social changes. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) rightly accorded the issue considerable importance. The Kyoto conference a year from today will provide the occasion for further global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are pushing for all developed countries to renew their efforts and to take the next step—by agreeing to reduce those emissions to between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by the year 2010. The United Kingdom is already on course to return its emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. We are one of a minority of developed countries to do that; we are also among a minority of countries in the European Union to do so.
My hon. Friend stressed that he wished us to take a lead. We have already adopted a prominent role and, as my hon. Friend recognised, we shall continue to take a lead in this matter. We recognise that the current target is inadequate to meet the ultimate objective of the convention: to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. My hon. Friend was therefore right to say that we must do more. It is also right that developed nations should take the lead. Unless the richer nations of the west take seriously our responsibility for dealing with the pollution from which we have grown rich, we cannot expect the newer nations, which themselves are perfectly properly seeking to raise their standards of living, to take up their share of the burden.
We shall also follow up those other important Rio subjects: the forests and the oceans. We are continuing the work of the intergovernmental panel on forests set up by the post-Rio Commission on Sustainable Development, and we are also taking the lead with respect to the oceans. Last year, we took the lead in organising an international workshop with Brazil, held here in Westminster, in which we worked with others to develop an international approach to tackling the problems of the oceans.
In today's debate, we have been called on to monitor our progress in achieving sustainable development. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk that, when we published our "Strategy for Sustainable Development" in 1994, following the Prime Minister's commitment at Rio, we promised to monitor its progress by means of a set of key indicators, to be produced within two years.
Defining what we mean by sustainable development is not easy. I listened with interest to the philosophical remarks by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. It is all about reconciling two basic aspirations: economic development to secure rising standards of living now and into the future; and protecting and enhancing the environment, now and for the future. The crucial point is whether we can continue to grow economically without inevitably causing further environmental damage by consuming ever more resources and producing more pollution. In short, sustainable development—in the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—means

not cheating on our children".
If we are to improve our policies to achieve this sustainable development, we need to monitor them by coming up with useful indicators. We published a preliminary set of "Indicators of Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom" in March of this year, following extensive discussions across Whitehall. The report is one of the first of its kind in the world. Although other countries and international organisations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have published sets of environmental indicators, we believe that the United Kingdom is the first country to produce a set of indicators which explicitly links economic and environmental elements.
I want next to consider how such indicators and targets work in practice, especially in relation to energy efficiency. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk made some strong comments about the performance of the government estate in this context. I understand what he said, but I can assure him that the Government do care and that we are taking action to secure the targets to which he referred. In 1990, members of the ministerial group on energy efficiency collectively agreed the target of improving energy efficiency on the government estate by 15 per cent. in the five years to 31 March of this year. Given the size and diversity of the estate, that was a challenging target, which showed the Government's commitment to improving energy efficiency and their willingness to set an example.
In the first three years of the initiative, progress was slow, and at the end of March 1994—the last 12-month period for which figures have been published—it was only at the rate of about 6 per cent. It is, however, in the nature of such exercises that the initial effort is on something of a learning curve, with greater improvements coming through in the later stages. I am glad to say that the signs are that that will apply in this case.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that an announcement to conclude the five-year initiative will be made in a few days' time. He will understand that I cannot pre-empt that announcement at this stage, but I am sure that he will be pleased by the figures that are revealed. The initiative will not end with that announcement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sought agreement from colleagues to the establishment of a new target requiring a 20 per cent. improvement by the year 2000.
Meanwhile, the Government are seeking to reduce the amount of land converted from rural to urban use by maximising the re-use of previously developed land. I have heard the calls today from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). The Government set a target in last year's housing White Paper: half of all new housing to be built on previously developed land. Last week, when launching the Green Paper "Household Growth: Where Shall We Live?", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State declared that the Government were seeking views on an aspirational target of 60 per cent., or even more, for new housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk urged us to set the even higher target of 75 per cent. I listened carefully to his arguments, including those for applying the sequential principle to the subject of housing development: I also heard his arguments for a green-field tax. Other hon. Members also seemed to be in favour.
Certainly great progress has been made in the past 10 years, with the proportion of new housing on recycled sites rising from 38 per cent. in 1985 to 49 per cent. by 1993.
The scope for the re-use of sites obviously varies from region to region. The major metropolitan areas with tight boundaries show the highest rates of re-use, with London achieving about 85 per cent.; while in the more rural counties the scope for re-use of urban sites is more limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton mentioned the changes in the character of Taunton that might ensue with expansion. I am sure that his comments struck a chord with people in many other areas, including the south-eastern counties. Moreover, his comments about the need for sensitivity in village architecture will have struck a chord with many.
I can assure my hon. Friends that we take this issue seriously. We are approaching it carefully and examining the whole subject of urbanisation with great care. We are keen to preserve our green belt and countryside as much as possible. The policies that we have put in place will go a long way in that direction.
I heard what my hon. Friends had to say about transport. They will know of our published national air quality strategy and the measures and targets that we have implemented to support it. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton may be pleased by some of the contents of the Local Government and Rating Bill. He called for help for rural car users. We recognise the importance of the car to rural areas, and he will find that that Bill includes car-sharing schemes to help rural dwellers.
I have been able to touch on some of the subjects raised in this far-seeing debate. The hon. Member for Deptford began promisingly in her speech, but unfortunately had to revert to type. She failed to catch the mood of the House and see the importance of the issues for future generations. She also failed to set out any policy targets or commitments. She spoke about sustainable development, but those two words do not appear in the Labour party's draft manifesto. It is widely recognised that that document is thin in environmental commitments and priorities, and sets no targets. We have set our targets and put in place the policies to achieve them.

Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clappison: I will not give way to the hon. Lady in the last minute. She was wrong in all that she said about environmental appraisal and the other topics that she raised. She did not do justice to the subject, she did not lift her eyes above the horizon of party political warfare and she did not set a tone for the future of sustainable development.

Brazilian Mahogany

Mr. Alan Simpson: If one asks Members of Parliament which aspect of the political agenda gives them the greatest trouble when they visit schools, the reply will almost certainly be, "the environment." That is a tribute to teachers, to television for reminding us what a small planet we live on, and to campaign groups such as Friends of the Earth, which are putting out a new message: the personal is the political is the environmental.
Schoolchildren are likely to challenge us on subjects such as tuna/dolphin netting, the overfishing of the seas, overcropping the land, the excessive use of pesticides or the destruction of the rain forests. It is hard to come away without feeling that our children know a great deal more than we do about the responsibilities that we carry for the future.
It should come as no surprise, then, that there is continued pressure on the United Kingdom to tackle the serious problem of illegally and unsustainably logged Brazilian mahogany—the species known as Swietenia Macrophylla. That is the subject of Friends of the Earth's campaign launched in 1993 under the title "Mahogany is Murder". The three questions that I shall address in this debate are "Why Britain?", "Why intervene?" and "Why now?"
On the first question, Britain is the second largest importer of Brazilian mahogany in the world. We are exceeded only by the United States. With that exception, Britain imports six times more Brazilian mahogany than any other country. Our share constitutes 30 per cent. of Brazilian mahogany exports. The 18,000 cu m of Brazilian mahogany that we import each year is a sizeable part of that world trade. Given such a role, Britain cannot disconnect itself from the questions of how mahogany is logged and what damage is done both to the sustainable environment in which it grows and to the lives of the Amazonian Indians in whose reserves it is mainly found.
The second question is why is there a case for intervening. The world has long ignored the devastation that has taken place in central and south America through the logging of Brazilian mahogany, much of which lies in the protected Indian reserves. Logging in those reserves is illegal under the Brazilian constitution, which guarantees the rights of Indians to occupy and exclusively use their ancestral lands. Sadly, those rights exist in theory rather than in practice.
The illegal logging of Brazilian mahogany has been accompanied by murder, bribery, intimidation and, albeit unwittingly, disease. In the past 15 years, since coming into contact with loggers from the world outside, the population of the Uru Eu Wau Wau tribe has been halved. Every month 4,000 to 5,000 trucks of illegally logged mahogany come out of the Guayayara area of Brazil. Every mahogany sawmill in Brazil creates a further 500 km of new roads into the reserves and rainforests each year to extract that one species.
In 1993, a furore was caused when the Brazilian Government ordered the main logging companies to remove their equipment from the tribal reserves in Pará state and to pay compensation. In addition, the tribes and environmental campaigners in Brazil put out a cry for


international help. That was the background to the Friends of the Earth campaign, "Mahogany is Murder". It also gave rise to a gentlemen's agreement between UK timber importers and the timber exporters based in Brazil. Since that time, however, a series of studies and protests have made it clear that illegal exploitation continues on a large scale.
In May this year the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme brought home to us how extensive that is. The programme documented the continuing intrusion into tribal lands, the widespread illegal logging that continues and the well developed network that exports the illegally and unsustainably logged Brazilian mahogany to Britain. We know that 10 out of the 14 Indian reserves in Pará state are involved in illegal logging by timber export companies.
The third question, "Why now?", focuses on what action Britain has already taken and what action we must take in the immediate future. It would be wrong to suggest that people in Britain are indifferent to what is happening to the Brazilian rain forests. As a result of considerable campaigning, five of the major DIY stores in Britain—Sainsbury's Homebase, B and Q, Do It All, Great Mills and Texas—have all ceased to sell Brazilian mahogany. They do not want to stop selling it completely; they want a framework in which they can sell it legitimately, in the knowledge that that mahogany has been legally and sustainably produced. They ask that, in addition to the individual and company responses in Britain, there should be a publicly led response from the UK Government.
The Government have a window of opportunity. In July next year there will be a meeting of an international body known as the Conference of Parties. That particular meeting is referred to as COP 10. At the last conference Britain supported a proposal that Brazilian mahogany should be listed on appendix II of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES. The proposal was narrowly defeated. It would have required the production of a non-detriment document by timber exporting companies and countries, which would show proof of sustainable growth in both the forestry and cutting policies.
The proposal would require clear monitoring policies and international access to open information for verification purposes. The motion was narrowly defeated, but it has a chance of success in the next round. However, there is one big "but" that we must address: will the proposal be on the agenda of the next conference?
The deadline for submitting a proposal is 10 January next year, and the current campaign seeks a commitment from the United Kingdom Government that they will put down such a proposal. They could do so in their own right or in conjunction with other countries. If we do not submit that proposal, we shall allow the illegal and unsustainable trade in Brazilian mahogany to continue. That is all that I and the current campaign ask: we urge the United Kingdom Government to make that commitment.
The Government have expressed their continuing concern about the illegal and unsustainable logging of Brazilian mahogany. However, concern is not enough. There are some wonderful lines in a song by Tracy Chapman that say:
A love declared for days to come is as good as none".

That sentiment applies to the Government in this case. It is not enough for us simply to be concerned: we must grasp the opportunity to put the proposal on the agenda of the next COP 10 conference. I recognise that that does not guarantee its success; I understand that the case must be made at the conference and that the arguments must be won. Other countries—particularly those who export mahogany—will have to be convinced that that is the only basis upon which future trade in endangered species will be allowed in a sustainable world economy.
The Government must not duck the issue: we must address it now. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to confirm that, at the forthcoming conference, the United Kingdom will propose that Brazilian mahogany be listed on appendix II of CITES. I ask him for that assurance today.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: We must be grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) for raising this important subject in the House today. I declare my special interest as chairman of the all-party British-Brazilian parliamentary group. We are talking about a significant industry in the Amazon basin, which covers an area of 1.5 million sq km—six times the size of the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 20 million cu m of mahogany are growing in the basin. To put the matter in perspective, 250,000 cu m of mahogany—or one eightieth of the total—were harvested over a two-year period earlier in the decade.
The problem is how to control the unreasonable ripping out of mahogany from the Amazon jungle. The Brazilian institute IBAMA deals with such matters and tries its best, under very difficult circumstances, to enforce strict controls. It is interesting to note that some 70 per cent. of logging operations granted management plan status have had their plans cancelled or suspended following inspection. The IBAMA is making increasing progress in this area, thanks to the rapid development of air-borne sensors and photography which enables it to observe what is occurring in that vast area. It recently confiscated some 48,000 cu m of illegally harvested mahogany and the proceeds of its official sale have released considerable sums for projects promoting the self-sustainability of Amazon basin tribes, such as the Kayapó.
How can we help the Brazilian Government—and particularly their agency, IBAMA—to control mahogany harvesting? We should not kill the trade entirely by controlling exports. Thousands of jobs in the Amazon basin depend on legal hardwood harvesting. It is significant that the United Kingdom provides overseas aid to projects that attempt to sustain the livelihoods of inhabitants of the basin. We should remember that more than 50 per cent. of the mahogany harvested in the Amazon basin is consumed within Brazil, and therefore would not be subject to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species listing.
Inclusion of Brazilian mahogany in appendix II of the convention must depend on scientific evidence that the species is near extinction. There is no such evidence at present, despite much discussion about the matter. A decision should not be made on the basis of politics or emotion. Britain can assist with the scientific and technical side of detection and support the Brazilians in their efforts. We can also help by researching alternative


employment prospects within the Amazon basin, as is occurring at Kew gardens and the Edinburgh Forestry Institute. We must not give in to emotion and repress the trade. That would send it underground and the price of mahogany would decrease, making it more affordable for the Brazilian population and resulting in increased mahogany extraction.
If Brazilian mahogany were listed, it would be subject to European Union quotas—that organisation is quite capable of enforcing a zero quota—which would have a devastating effect on legal mahogany extraction, which is controlled, and foster the illegal extraction of cheap wood for sale in Brazil. That would have the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman and I desire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has raised an issue of great interest to the House and beyond. I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the Government's approach to the subject. I shall answer in detail the hon. Gentleman's question about our attitude toward the listing of Brazilian mahogany under appendix II of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species.
It may be helpful if I begin by reminding the House that CITES provides a framework for regulating international trade in wild plants and animals. The convention has been agreed by more than 130 countries and levels of control differ according to the degree of threat to the species. Commercial trade in more than 800 species is banned and trade in a further 25,000 species is subject to licensing procedures. The convention has three levels of controls on the international trade in endangered species. Broadly speaking, those listed on appendix I may not be traded; those listed on appendix II—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—may be traded only when both the exporting and the importing states agree that the shipment would not harm the conservation status of the species; while appendix III species are subject to monitoring at the request of the state or states for which they are listed.
The hon Gentleman has asked the Government to submit a proposal to the conference to list Brazilian mahogany on appendix II of the convention. International trade in Brazilian mahogany has been monitored under CITES since November last year, when the species was added to appendix III. Provisional figures show that some 25,500 cu m were imported into the United Kingdom in the 12 months since then. Adding the species to appendix II of the convention would not, in itself, ban imports into the United Kingdom or anywhere else but it would place an obligation on the exporting countries to ensure that timber was logged sustainably.
A proposal to list the species on appendix II failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority vote at the last CITES conference, in 1994, despite support from the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union. If a new proposal is put before the next conference, we will consider it carefully in the light of the scientific evidence and current circumstances. I cannot anticipate the Government's position on possible future

proposals at this stage, although it is a matter of record that we have twice supported CITES controls on Brazilian mahogany, but I can say, in response to the hon. Gentleman's concern, that we are not persuaded that the United Kingdom should take the initiative and submit a proposal to the conference. I shall tell him why.
We believe that CITES listing proposals should generally be made by the range states for the species concerned. If that is not possible, there should at least be close consultation with them. Like all international agreements, CITES depends on co-operation between the member countries for its success. That does not mean consensus. There will be differences of opinion, and sometimes the evidence demands that species be protected even if some range states disagree, but no debate will be productive if the starting point is one country seeming to tell another what to do with its natural resources.
The House will have listened with interest to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in that regard, particularly to what he said about help that this country gives to assist sustainable development in Brazil. In addition to the help to which he referred, the Overseas Development Administration is providing £19 million of aid to assist Brazil with sustainable forest projects.
CITES exists because some conservation problems require global solutions. Sometimes, range states make listing proposals themselves. Sometimes they may lack the capacity to do so alone. On other occasions they may feel that CITES controls are unnecessary. Whatever the circumstances, pre-conference consultation is a prerequisite of informed discussion. The CITES parties endorsed that principle four years ago when they agreed that draft proposals should be circulated to range states well in advance of the deadline for final submission.
It is very late for the United Kingdom to begin consultations on a Brazilian mahogany proposal for the next CITES conference when final documents have to be submitted, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South rightly said, by 10 January 1997. We would be in breach of the agreed way of working if we went ahead without any consultation.
That does not mean that we shall take a back seat at the conference. The United Kingdom has always been active in promoting international action through CITES. In preparation for next year's conference, we are heavily engaged in a major initiative on the impact of traditional east Asian medicines on a wide range of animals and plants, some of them critically endangered. This is in addition to our responsibilities as vice-chair of the convention's standing committee. We shall also take a close interest in the outcome of the international working group on timber, which was established following the UK's initiative at the 1994 conference.

Mr. Simpson: The UK was involved in last month's conference in Puerto Rico, particularly with regard to Brazilian mahogany being at risk as an endangered species. What are the prospects of the conference's findings being fed into the next round, the COP 10 round? Following the "Dispatches" programme, in what way will the knowledge that the UK has about members of the Brazilian Timber Exporters Federation being actively involved in illegal and unsustainable logging and


exporting to the UK form part of the representations that the United Kingdom is making and the action that the United Kingdom plans to take?

Mr. Clappison: We will, of course, reflect on the content of the conference, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in our approach towards next year's conference. We will be governed as well by the principles, which I have just outlined, in the approach we take. They are valuable principles if we are to achieve international co-operation. We will seek information on the subject and will reflect carefully on it. I will deal with the important issue of private loggers in due course. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that I dealt with that subject at length in an Adjournment debate earlier this year.
I shall put the matter into context, because many of the concerns expressed about the species are as much to do with forest management in the producer countries as the effects of international trade. The vast majority of timber logged in the Amazon is used domestically. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham adverted to that when he said that up to 50 per cent. of it was used within Brazil. CITES recognises that the prime responsibility for managing wildlife lies with the countries concerned. The convention's controls provide an additional and essential safeguard for species that qualify for listing, but that does not take away the responsibility of individual countries to manage their own resources sustainably.
I now deal with the internal situation in Brazil. I understand that, shortly after the previous Adjournment debate on mahogany in July this year, the Brazilian Government announced new measures to regulate timber extraction in the Amazon basin. Private landowners were to be restricted to clearing 20 per cent. of forests on their land rather than the previously allowed 50 per cent. A two-year moratorium was proposed on the granting of new authorisations for the commercial exploitation of mahogany and other timber species. Where logging continued, management plans and practices would be inspected by the responsible Government agency. There would be an extra US$6 million for new facilities and equipment. Monitoring rates of deforestation would be intensified. Those measures were confirmed at a recent meeting of the International Tropical Timber Organisation.
I shall touch briefly on some of the actions that the UK is taking to help preserve and enhance the world's forests. I have already mentioned the funds that have been made available from the ODA. I can tell the House that current projects cover basic scientific research, biodiversity conservation and trials of sustainable land management approaches. The UK is also committed to supporting the objectives of a large multi-donor pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest.
Many other international initiatives on forest management concerned with conservation and sustainable use are in progress. The first international consensus in that sphere was a statement of principles on the sustainable management of the world's forests, agreed at the Earth summit in Rio. The UK played a leading role in securing that agreement. The UK also played a major role in establishing the UN intergovernmental panel on forests,

which will report to the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1997 with specific proposals to follow up the principles agreed in Rio.

Mr. Chris Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clappison: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would restrain himself for a minute. I will make a little more progress, if I may.
We hope that the panel will produce agreement on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management on the basis of national plans, and devise a mechanism for periodic international review of the forestry sector.
European countries followed up Rio with a commitment to the Helsinki guidelines for sustainable forest management. Thirty-eight European countries are now committed to implementing them. In 1994, we published "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme", which details UK action for sustainable forestry management at home.
CITES has been the focus of the debate. We acknowledge that it has a role to play in all this activity. It is one of the oldest of the international wildlife agreements. It offers practical safeguards for species threatened by over-intensive international trade. As an importing country, we must do our best to satisfy ourselves that the timber that we buy from other countries has been logged without endangering forest biodiversity, which is so very precious for the world. We must also recognise that, in many cases, conservation of the world's forests depends on sustainable harvesting. Import bans are not a sensible option for species such as Brazilian mahogany.
Controlled monitoring under CITES might be a useful addition to the forestry management measures that the Brazilian Government are taking. We do not believe that it would be helpful for the UK to take upon itself the responsibility of sponsoring a listing, but we have supported proposals in the past to list mahogany on appendix II and so provide further safeguards. I can reassure the House that we will look carefully at any proposal that meets the agreed criteria.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned internal activities in Brazil and the relationship between United Kingdom companies involved in this trade and Brazilian producers. He knows of discussions that have taken place. I shall certainly take a close interest in those discussions and will write to him, giving details of the outcome. That will interest the hon. Gentleman who will know that many United Kingdom firms adopt a responsible approach to this matter and have been concerned to have full discussions with Brazilian producers.
I hope that I have outlined the Government's responsible course and that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). I do not have time for interventions but if the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me on any of the subjects that I have raised in the debate I shall be happy to deal with it in correspondence. I think that I have satisfied the House that we are taking a responsible approach on the issue of mahogany through CITES and that we are playing our full part in international efforts to conserve valuable forests, and especially mahogany forests.

Uniform Business Rate (Dorset)

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful for the opportunity to take half an hour of the House's time to follow a debate about preserving the rain forests with one about preserving small businesses in Dorset. I am grateful to see my colleague, if I may call her that, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) in her place. I have been in touch with all my colleagues in Dorset, who have given me their comments, and I think that we are of one mind in terms of what I shall say. They send their apologies because they are in Committees at the moment.
I have been trying to get this debate from late spring. We have gone through the whole gamut of writing to Ministers, talking to people in the Valuation Office and trying to put some pressure on Ministers and on the valuation people for a debate on rates revaluation. The Chancellor must have realised that I would be lucky in the ballot for an Adjournment debate because he moved swiftly in the Budget to try to defuse the problem by announcing a complete freeze on business rates for smaller businesses. We in Dorset are universally delighted. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) and the hon. Member for Christchurch are nodding in agreement. We are delighted that small businesses have got their message through to the Chancellor and that there has been a freeze in business rates.
That opens up the debate about what will happen in future. The Government have clearly been listening. The effect of business rates on small businesses is marked and in our next term in government, we shall have to address it seriously. Much of what I shall say will be directed towards what we should do in our next term in office when we shall again make reforms to ensure that Britain remains the enterprise centre of Europe, if not of the world.
First, I shall give the reasons why we in Dorset were particularly concerned about the rating revaluation that was carried out on the basis of valuations in April 1993 and came into being in April 1995. We were first told of the valuations in about January 1995 and that gave rise to a great deal of concern. Businesses in Dorset suddenly found that they faced increases which, in the context of the national picture, seemed extraordinarily perverse and strange. The flow of trade in some businesses in specific parts of towns—especially in Wareham and Swanage in my constituency, although there are pockets throughout Dorset; certainly in Portland but not to the same extent—had gone in the opposite direction from that of businesses in other parts of the towns. However, those businesses had large rate increases while the rates for some other businesses had been reduced.
After the announcement in January 1995, one would have thought that the fuss would die down. I spoke to the valuation officer in Bournemouth this morning and asked how the appeals were going. I was told that they were proceeding quite well and that there was virtually nothing outstanding for more than 18 months. I thought that there would not be many appeals left and I asked, "What is the position in Purbeck?" It has one of the smallest local authorities in the country and it has 374 outstanding appeals on business rates. Many of my constituents would not believe that there were 374 businesses in Purbeck, let alone appeals. This is plainly a serious matter.
I asked the Valuation Office about the list that came in during 1990, thinking that we would have finished with that. However, several hundred appeals from throughout Dorset are still outstanding from that list. That seems to go on for years and causes great uncertainty in businesses. In my later remarks about why the whole system should be changed, I shall try to address that.
Why do appeals take so long? The system relies on rental values, is contentious and requires a review every five years. It is unacceptable to spend five years after that review, which is the norm, sorting out the appeals and the problems. A business whose rates are suddenly doubled suffers blight despite the fact that transitional reliefs are coming through and the Government have listened and have frozen business rates. A proprietor who is thinking of selling his premises or his business, has to say to the new owners, "Eventually you will have to pay twice the current rates."

Sir Jim Spicer: Is there not another factor in any system that is based on rental values? Many empty shops are owned not by individuals but by property companies. Those companies have the premises on their books at a book value that is kept artificially high because they keep their rental asking price high. To what extent is that taken into account on valuation? No discount seems to be allowed for the fact that it is an artificial price world rather than the real world.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly and I do not need to repeat it. However, I shall give an example.
The businesses in a whole street in Wareham had had little change of ownership, although there were many empty properties. A new business man came along who thought that he could make an enormous success of a business and wanted the premises, but he had not been well advised about the rent for the premises. As a result, all the businesses in the street have been completely skewed because one person was badly advised about rent.
A landlord is entitled to charge whatever a tenant is willing to pay. However, if a person pays twice the going rate for premises and that is the only rental information that is available to the Valuation Office because nobody else has taken up new leases—people are all trickling out of business—that new lease will be used as the criterion for bumping up everybody's rateable value.
Of course, the converse could occur. Somebody could obtain a knockdown rate, but when that happens the rating valuation officers say, "Hang on a minute. These are special circumstances, because somebody was desperate to let his property." As a result, they discount the information. There are many problems, and I shall show why the system is unsatisfactory.
First, I shall deal with the appeals procedure. Not only does it take a long time to get to appeal and for people to talk to valuation officers, but often the valuation officers decide to wait a year or so until the case has almost reached the tribunal and then make time to talk to the business person about whether the rate is right. They may negotiate before the tribunal sits.
If the case reaches a tribunal, there will usually be a strange situation in which a group of lay people, whom I do not criticise, honestly compare the evidence of an


acknowledged independent valuer—who is not doing anything dishonest, but giving his or her honest opinion of the value—with the evidence of a valuer, who is perhaps a member of an institute of chartered surveyors, acting on behalf of, and trying to achieve a reduction for, his client, the ratepayer. The tribunal will therefore have two sets of evidence and information.
Tribunal members might say, "The independent valuer is giving us independent advice, as is the appellant's valuer, who may he trying to point out the best possible case to reduce rates." They tend to say to themselves. "We had better, as an independent tribunal, take the independent valuer's advice." If the independent valuer has it wrong in many cases, he will win even more appeals, whereas logic would dictate that he should lose them. It is difficult for the tribunal system to obtain independent advice. Perhaps tribunals should take independent advice from a completely disinterested valuer to evaluate the situation.
The current tribunal system is not working. I have received some very irate letters from valuers saying, "When people come to see me and ask whether I will represent them in a tribunal, I tell them in all honesty that they may be wasting their money, because I will give my honest, independent advice. As the appeal tribunal will accept the evidence presented by the independent valuer, we may well be wasting our money—sending good money after bad."
The basis of the universal business rate is a big problem, and I shall give a few examples of why it does not work. We should remember that, in the system, we are trying to measure local businesses' ability to pay, or to gain an idea of what services they are receiving from local authorities. A fairly popular conception among other ratepayers is that businesses should pay something towards maintaining the local community, but how do we measure those factors? We do so by considering the rental value, which has remarkably little relevance—it is of such little relevance that it is almost perverse—in determining what benefits a business gives to the community or receives from it.
We have many hotel premises in Dorset. When someone stays in a hotel, the amount that they pay is very closely related to the cost of providing those premises. The business's rating is based on the property and rental values, which almost means that it is being rated on its total turnover. However, in products bought from a manufacturer, for example, only a tiny proportion of the price will be related to the rent paid. Therefore, we are rating not according to the business's overall value and activities but according to the accommodation element of its costs. That feature is perverse, and it often affects businesses in small retail premises.
Small Dorset villages with only one village shop very much welcome the Government's—albeit indirect—efforts to address the issue. The Government are trying to overcome the system's inherent problems with business rating valuation by bypassing it.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: The hon. Gentleman has touched on the issue of the viability of villages. However, the viability of our town centres is also an important issue, many aspects of which we have discussed. Does he agree that sorting out, first, the appeals system and, secondly, the method by which we raise rates

is vital if we are to tackle the problem of viable town centres—something that all hon. Members would like to do?

Mr. Bruce: It is always a delight for me to be able to agree with the hon. Lady. We have done something special for villages that will help to ensure their viability, but that will not deal with the problem of the viability of small town centres, where very few people go.
So often, market towns are attractive places for people to live and retire. Property values, and therefore rental values—even the rental value of a shop—will be higher. It is then less a question of, "Shall I move into a different business?" than, "Shall I close the business and convert those business premises to living premises?" The valuation will be based on a value of the business's premises and not necessarily on its viability.
If one has a fairly valuable property in the middle of small, sleepy market town to which few people are moving, in which there is a shop that may require a large stock and a large area in which customers can browse, the owner-manager—who perhaps cannot pay himself a salary—will pay an enormous rate, based on the floor area. If I were making microcomputers and employed 50 people in out-of-town premises, perhaps on an industrial estate, the rent, and therefore the rates, that I would have to pay for those premises per staff member would be relatively small. Conversely, the one-person shop owner with large premises but few customers and little turnover would pay extremely high rates. We must deal with that problem.
There is also a marked difference between types of manufacturer. For example, a manufacturer of polystyrene packaging, which is very bulky, will use much more floor space than another manufacturer. We require a system that recognises such differences.
Inevitably, people will say, "We have local rates on local property for local businesses so that local people know that they are contributing towards the overall rates burden." That is not true of the UBR. Whatever the local authority collects from its businesses will be cut from its revenue support grant. It is all smoke and mirrors.
There is absolutely no relation between what local businesses contribute to the local economy and the amount that is spent—a fact that often comes as a great shock to local people and businesses. If half the businesses in my constituency went out of business and there were a massive increase in unemployment, the standard spending assessment for my area would increase because of the various factors considered in it. We would then, although we were collecting less money from businesses, receive more money in the RSG. Every pound that we do not collect from businesses will be made up in the RSG from central taxation, which is a complete nonsense.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government should not fiddle about with the problem if they are serious about tackling it. Let us commission some real studies into how we can collect taxes from local businesses that will go to local councils to be spent by them, and let us do away with all the costs of systems for valuations, appeals and tribunals. Let us change the basis of the tax. No one is happy if business taxes go up, but I would be happier with an extra 1 per cent.—I think that that might be sufficient—on corporation tax specifically


for local taxes, or with some other mechanism, even one based on turnover. That would be more accurate than trying to link the rate to the rental value business premises.
I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on the appeals procedure and why it takes so long. I hope that he will give us more information on this year's welcome freeze and some idea of the future of the unified business rate for small—indeed, all—businesses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) on raising the issue of business rates. He and others have made strong representations on what they regard as their constituents' difficulties with the business rate. Many ratepayers in Dorset are unhappy with the new rateable values that they have been given as a result of the most recent valuation, which came in on 1 April. They are also unhappy about the speed of the appeals procedure. We recognise that considerable pressure is being applied on that point. I commend hon. Members from Dorset for pushing those issues.
There have been considerable increases. Rateable values in Dorset as a whole rose by about 8 per cent., although in Purbeck they rose by as much as 32 per cent. in some instances. That is quite a dramatic rise. The rateable values of shops as a class rose by 8 per cent. in Dorset overall, but by 24 per cent. in Purbeck. If there is a positive side to that for Purbeck, it is that it is obviously a nice area, in which people seem to want to live, with the result that valuations go up. However, as my hon. Friend has said, the increases are considerable.
The 1995 revaluation produced little change in the total rateable value across the country, but there were dramatic changes in some regions, including Dorset. My hon. Friend suggested several ideas that I shall consider—we are looking at the issue at the moment. However, in any form of valuation, regular revaluations are needed to keep up with shifts in popularity and in the basis of property valuation throughout the country.
Before 1990, business rates were set by the local council. We should reflect—as I am sure that my hon. Friend will—on some of the effects of that up and down the country. I lived in London at that time and I remember the difference between the rates set for businesses in Tottenham Court road, under the Labour-controlled Camden council, and those next door in Westminster. Businesses were driven out by the business rates set by Labour councils.
Some of the alternatives being put forward by Opposition parties would be dramatically damaging. If we returned to a system under which local authorities set the business rates, areas with Labour or Liberal Democrat councils, with their expenditure procedures and their lack of decent co-ordination and quality control, could end up with high council taxes and high business rates.

Mrs. Maddock: What research has the Minister done into the differences between businesses when local

authorities were responsible for the rates and how that system compares with the situation since the change to the uniform business rate?

Sir Paul Beresford: One does not have to do research. One had only to walk the streets of London. The boundaries between Conservative-controlled authorities and Labour or Liberal-controlled authorities were clear. The shops ran away from the business rates under Liberal and Labour-controlled authorities. The doors along Tottenham Court road were shut permanently.
If we had a Labour Government and responsibility for business rates were returned to local authorities, with the inefficiency that we have come to expect from Labour and Liberal authorities and the removal of compulsory competitive tendering and of capping, the effects on businesses would be dramatic.
Let us return to the problems of today. We recognise that those ratepayers whose bills have risen need help. We have put in help through the transitional scheme, which ensured that the increases in bills caused by the revaluation were phased in over several years.
In its original form, the scheme provided for a maximum real-terms increase of 10 per cent. For properties with a rateable value of £10,000—or £15,000 in London—an even tighter annual limit of 7.5 per cent. applied. The protection given under the scheme was enhanced in 1995, with the limits on real-terms increases for 1996–97 being reduced to 7.5 per cent for larger properties and 5 per cent. for small properties. As my hon. Friend has said, this year's Budget provides further help for smaller properties—their bills for 1997–98 will be frozen at the 1996–97 level and there will no increase in cash terms. That will be a real-terms reduction of 2 per cent. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that that is a step in the right direction.
As a result of the Budget changes to the transitional scheme, the 1997–98 rate bills of small properties for which the rateable value rose significantly in 1995 will be, at the most, 10.5 per cent. more in real terms than the 1994–95 bills. If the property contains living accommodation, the maximum real-terms increase over the 1994–95 bill will be only 5.5 per cent.
Villages have also been mentioned. There has been a dramatic shift in the situation for villages. The Local Government and Rating Bill currently in Committee will make a dramatic difference, enabling local authorities to pitch in and help. They will have to reflect the mandatory 50 per cent. reduction for the key general stores and post offices in villages with a population of less than 3,000. Councils will be able to top that up to 100 per cent. and will also be able to give great help with business rates to small shops in the same villages.
Larger properties did not benefit from this year's Budget, but many will still be receiving help under the transitional scheme. Any property for which the rateable value rose in 1995 by the average increase of 32 per cent. in Purbeck will have a lower rate bill next year than would have been the case if the new rateable value had been reflected fully.
I know that many rateable values rose significantly in 1995. Many people in that situation found it difficult to relate that rise to what they thought had happened to the local property market. However, it is important to remember that the change in rateable values reflects the


change in the property market between April 1988 and April 1993, not the change between 1990 and 1995, because the 1995 rating list was based on the rental market in April 1993 and the 1990 list was based on the rental market in April 1988. If my hon. Friend considers carefully what I have said when he reads Hansard tomorrow, he may well accept that there were considerable changes in the property market between the late 1980s and the early 1990s. Those changes are now being reflected.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out many times, valuation is not an exact science. That is why any ratepayer who feels that his valuation is too high can appeal to an independent valuation tribunal. Many are doing so. I know that because I, too, have a small business, and considered doing the same.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the speed with which appeals against rateable values are dealt with. If he reflects on the dramatic changes in the value of property in the relevant period, he will recognise that that inevitably gives rise to an enormous volume of appeals, particularly given the complications and the downturn in the market after the date for calculating rateable values.
The rateable value of a property can be reduced on appeal. If that happens, all sums above the new rateable value are refunded and interest is paid. However, that does not ease the cash flow problem for small businesses. The Valuation Office, which is responsible for maintaining the rating lists, is committed to clearing by the end of 1997 all appeals that were made in the first year of the 1995 list. It is further committed to assuring that, by 1 April 1998, appeals will be cleared within 12 months of being made. I should stress that both the Valuation Office and valuation tribunals are prepared to give priority to appeals made by small businesses and, especially, unrepresented ratepayers. They will also give priority in cases of hardship where it is brought to their attention.
Given the lack of time, I should reflect briefly on the other aspect that assists small towns and the shops in them, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset the general nature of the economy. The economy is moving forward strongly. In addition, we are doing much through other systems, such as the planning and urban regeneration systems, to revive small towns and bring businesses back into them. That effort is starting to show in many towns.
I shall have to continue to look at the business rate and the business rate system. Every system—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We must move to the next debate.

Electricity Generation (East Lothian)

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject, which is obviously very important to many people in my constituency. East Lothian is literally the powerhouse of Scotland. It has the capacity to generate almost half the electricity that the country needs, from power stations at Torness and Cockenzie. With the deep mine at Monktonhall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), who is in his place, and the opencast site in Blindwells, East Lothian people produce a significant amount of coal too.
There are limits to the amount of opencast activity that any area should have to put up with, and I shall be bringing a delegation to see the Minister next month to discuss the case for fairer and more effective planning controls over private opencast developments. Today, however, I want to concentrate on East Lothian's two power stations.
With capacity to generate 1,320 MW at Torness and 1,200 MW at Cockenzie, East Lothian can satisfy fully 42 per cent. of Scotland's peak winter demand of 5,962 MW. Torness employs 630 people and Cockenzie 240, so the industry is crucial to my constituency's economy.
I am obviously not happy about the fact that Scottish Power, and now Scottish Nuclear, have been privatised by the Tory Government, and I am particularly concerned about the irresponsible privatisation of the nuclear industry. Of all industries, the nuclear industry is uniquely sensitive, and should remain under public control and in public ownership.
The privatisation of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric was the biggest public rip-off of them all. All eight power stations, including the best and newest advanced gas-cooled reactor at Torness, were sold to private speculators for less than the cost of building just one of them—Sizewell B. It was a matter of, buy one power station cheap and get seven more free. Sadly, Torness is one of the freebie stations. It also happens to be one of the best. According to British Energy, Torness power station produced 0.9 TW hours in October—the highest output of all eight nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom.
Having bought Torness cheap, the board of British Energy wants to run it on the cheap, too. It has announced plans to cut the work force from 630 people to 550–80 job losses on a nuclear site where safety considerations must be paramount and undermanning could create risks. I should like to cite one example of such risks, which has been drawn to my attention by employees at Torness power station.
I understand that, ideally, teams of staff should be dedicated to each of the two reactors. That principle is already being breached by the penny-pinchers of British Energy. Towards the end of August, an operations engineer from reactor II was sent to do some work on reactor I, which was off load for refuelling. He received an instruction to shut the main steam isolator for the turbine, which he duly did, but, unfortunately, he shut the valve on reactor II, which was on load, instead of that on reactor I, which was shut down; so reactor II tripped, and it took a day to bring it back on load.
I offer that as one cautionary tale of the false economies of undermanning at such a power station. We shall have to be extremely vigilant now that the Government have given the nuclear generating industry to private owners. I use the term "given" deliberately, because that is what has happened to Torness.
I turn to the imminent Government decisions that will be crucial to the future of Cockenzie power station. As the smaller of Scottish Power's two main coal-burning stations, Cockenzie currently operates as a major standby generator, available to produce electricity if there is a problem at another station or for export to England and Wales.
Cockenzie is very good at that job. Its engineers can fire up their plant very quickly, and the costs are very competitive for that purpose. The plant is in good order, and Scottish Power intends to invest in further improvements. The station should have a secure future until 2010. Since Scottish coalfields produce low-sulphur coal, the environmental impact would be acceptable.
If Cockenzie could gain access to wider markets, its output would increase and its costs would become even more competitive. Conversely, if a predatory competitor in the electricity market were to dump cheap electricity on to the already over-supplied Scottish market, the future of Cockenzie power station and the jobs of 240 of my constituents would be in serious jeopardy. I ask the Minister to face up to the Government's responsibility on both those counts.
Scottish Power is striving to increase the capacity of the transmission system to make it possible to export electricity. There is 9,323 MW of generating capacity in Scotland, which is 1,870 MW more than what is required to cover our peak demand, plus a reasonable planning margin. As Scotland's standby station, Cockenzie could be seen as that spare capacity. Its average load factor last year was just 21.3 per cent., so Cockenzie must export if it is to survive. In financial terms, it is very competitive, so Scottish Power is able to export much electricity from Cockenzie to England and Wales through the recently upgraded cross-border interconnector.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would bear with me, since I want to make a number of points, and time is short.
Last year, 2,154 GW hours were exported from Cockenzie down the interconnector to England and Wales—so far, so good. To use Cockenzie to its real potential, however, access is also needed to markets in Northern Ireland and—hopefully—the Republic of Ireland. An interconnector between the electricity systems of Scotland and Northern Ireland would be good news for the Scottish electricity and coal industries, and very good news for consumers on the island of Ireland.
The two parts of Ireland are the only parts of the European Union that do not have access to electricity supplies from other countries. I know from contacts with people in the Republic—through the British-Irish parliamentary body—and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies that they would welcome access to competitively priced electricity from Scotland.
Scottish Power and Northern Ireland Electricity have worked up detailed proposals for an undersea interconnector, which have been considered in great detail at public inquiries in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Both inquiries led to recommendations that the project should go ahead with overhead pylons carrying 275 KV lines from Coylton in Ayrshire to the coast, and an undersea cable to connect it to the system in Northern Ireland.
A written answer from the Minister that I received only yesterday confirmed:
The Reporter"—
at the public inquiry—
considered that undergrounding of any part of the proposed line was unnecessary.
I am very well aware that electricity transmission pylons are detrimental to any landscape; we have plenty of them in East Lothian. I clearly remember the public inquiry into the Torness pylon lines, which was very controversial. The original proposal was to take the lines by the easiest route along the foot of the Lammermuir hills, but the inquiry proposed a less obtrusive alternative route between the hills, and it was accepted by the reporter and the Secretary of State at the time.
A suggestion that all the visible stretches of the lines should be laid underground at massive expense would not have been taken seriously. If that was now on offer, I would be truly delighted if sections of the cable at Johnscleugh, Mayshiel and Humbie were put underground, but I do not honestly think that that is realistic. The pylons are a sacrifice that we had to make for the benefit of the wider Scottish and national economies.
Today, the Secretary of State for Scotland seems to be playing by different rules. I do not criticise people in South Ayrshire for seeking to minimise the impact of that important development on their landscape, except that I must say that some of them seem to have slightly short memories. It is not all that long since coal and electricity were important elements in their local economy, too. The reporter at the inquiry considered those representations, and he concluded that the Scottish-Irish electricity interconnector should go ahead.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is not my hon. Friend aware that South Ayrshire produces more opencast coal than any other part of Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom? A number of applications are also currently being considered by the local authority. Coal still plays an important part in the economy of South Ayrshire.
Is my hon. Friend also aware that we have to take account of environmental considerations? Hundreds of people turned out to public meetings in Maybole—not rich landowners, as suggested by my hon. Friend, but ordinary people—to object to the siting of the pylons. Is it not reasonable that the Secretary of State for Scotland should make a proposal for undergrounding just part of the line where it passes through the most beautiful scenery in Scotland? Is not that sensible, and a reasonable compromise that should be accepted by Scottish Power?

Mr. Home Robertson: With respect, no. The Secretary of State is changing the ground rules. If we could start all over again, I would love to put lots of sections of the transmission system in East Lothian


underground, but it is simply not fair to apply completely different rules in South Ayrshire to those which apply in other parts of the country.
The position now is that the Secretary of State for Scotland made an announcement, not in the House but elsewhere, two weeks ago, and he brought his political perspective to bear—at the behest, I suspect, of the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Struan Stevenson and other people who should know better.
The Secretary of State announced that he was minded to grant consent only if four sections were put underground, at a cost of £28 million, which could put the whole enterprise and the jobs of 240 of my constituents in jeopardy. He has given Scottish Power until 20 December to respond to that unwarranted and unprecedented imposition, and I can only speculate about their reaction. I have serious fears about the news that my constituents at Cockenzie might get for Christmas. In the name of fairness to my constituents and of consistency in planning decisions, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider that extraordinary decision.
I refer to another reply that the Minister gave me yesterday. I asked him what estimate he had made of the value to the Scottish economy of an electricity interconnector with Northern Ireland. His reply was, "None." He simply said that it was a matter for the private companies concerned, Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Power.
With respect, it has enormous potential value to the Scottish economy. The agreement with Northern Ireland Electricity would run for 15 years and would represent a coalburn of 600,000 tonnes, which is worth about £20 million a year. The interconnector would also attract £61 million of European union grant support. All that could be put in jeopardy.

Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman recall environmental arguments that the best way to use Scottish coal was sending the electricity by wire? The proposal would mean coal by wire to Northern Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on North Yorkshire, because there seems to be a block on upgrading the interconnector there, which would also be of great value?

Mr. Home Robertson: I am aware of that. We have so much excellent generating capacity in Scotland, and it should be used. Any artificial blocks, whether in Yorkshire or through planning constraints in South Ayrshire, should be reconsidered urgently.
But that issue is not the only one threatening the future of Cockenzie power station. I urge the Minister to look hard at PowerGen's mischievous threat to construct a gas-fired power station at Gartcosh in Lanarkshire. There is manifestly no need for any more generating capacity in Scotland. We have more than enough already. The idea would create only 35 jobs in north Lanarkshire, so it would be a woefully inadequate use of the site at Gartcosh. As the Minister knows, all the Members of Parliament and local authorities in Lanarkshire have expressed their opposition to the plan.
I say that the ploy is mischievous because it seems to be a device contrived by PowerGen to destabilise Scottish Power in its home market. My concern is that the reporter at the inquiry is supposed only to consider purely local planning issues for the Gartcosh neighbourhood.
I have a copy of the paper that has been put to the reporter, including a statement of matters that seem to the Secretary of State to be likely to be relevant to the reporter's consideration of the application, and it lists 12 criteria, all specifically local to the Gartcosh neighbourhood. I fear that those strict criteria for the inquiry could prevent him from taking into account effects elsewhere in Scotland, such as the threat to the economy of East Lothian and the likelihood that a loss-lead gas-fired station at Gartcosh could cause the premature closure of Cockenzie power station, with the loss of 240 jobs in my constituency, not to mention many more in the mining industry and in other parts of Scotland.
The Scottish Office is taking serious risks with my constituents' employment. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to my concerns today; I strongly urge him to give positive and unequivocal support to the principle of the Irish interconnector and to remove any unreasonable conditions that have been considered by the Secretary of State. I urge him also to resist the threat of an unwanted and entirely inappropriate gas-fired power station at Gartcosh.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for raising this important issue. The energy industry is, of course, of fundamental economic importance, and I know that, with two power stations in his constituency and coal mining interests in the area, he takes a close interest in the subject. I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) in his place.
I will turn in a moment to the specific issues that the hon. Member has raised, but I would first like to remind the House of the basis of the Government's energy policy. The Government's aim is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy in the forms that people and businesses want, at competitive prices.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Can the Minister explain how Scottish Power, behaving in a predatory fashion, can take over Southern Water? How does that square with the objectives of Government energy policy? How do water and electricity mix?

Mr. Kynoch: I will not be diverted from the subject of the Adjournment debate today, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the competitive marketplace, and I will be touching on that issue later on.
We believe our aim can be best achieved through the free market, which is the most effective and efficient means for meeting our energy needs. It determines prices best and exposes costs to rigorous test. Competition gives businesses the strongest incentive to meet the needs of customers and empowers the purchasers of fuel and consumers of energy, enabling them to get the best possible deal.
As a result of our policy, consumers have enjoyed real benefits. Since the privatisation of Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric in 1991, electricity prices have fallen by about 8 per cent., with further reductions coming as a result of nuclear privatisation. With the introduction of full competition into the electricity supply industry in


1998, I am sure consumers will benefit yet further from a greater freedom of choice, a greater range of suppliers and from lower prices.
Government should not attempt to impose all-embracing plans about how much energy and what kind should be produced or consumed by whom. Uncertainties about supply and demand, technology, and the behaviour of people and companies, doom such plans to failure.
The hon. Member for East Lothian raised a number of specific issues, and I will try to deal with them in turn in the short time available to me.
On the subject of the Scotland-Northern Ireland interconnector, I should begin by reminding the House that my right hon. Friend has not refused to give the go-ahead to the project. He has looked at the evidence that was presented to the inquiry, as it is proper that he should do, and he is minded to take a different view from the reporter of the weight to be attached to locally significant areas of landscape quality. The areas involved are the Water of Girvan; Nick of the Balloch; Duisk valley; and the Water of Tig and Dunnach Burn.
I repeat, my right hon. Friend has not refused Scottish Power's application. In fact, he has stated that he is minded to grant consent to it, subject to appropriate conditions but excluding the four sections I mentioned, where he is presently minded to conclude that undergrounding of the line is appropriate. Scottish Power and others have been asked to comment by 20 December. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is little more that I can add about that aspect of the proposal at this stage.
My right hon. Friend will listen carefully to what Scottish Power and the other parties have to say, and will announce his decision in due course.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: I should like to conclude this section of my speech, and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman afterwards if there is time.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Electricity generated from power stations in his constituency might well be exported through the interconnector. However, I must repeat that the Government cannot try to second-guess the market. Ultimately, a decision on whether the project goes ahead, assuming that all the necessary legal consents are given, will be a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies involved—Scottish Power and Northern Ireland Electricity.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kynoch: Briefly, but very briefly, because time is limited.

Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue. May I tell the Minister, who is obviously interested in electricity generation, that the base load is taken up by nuclear power. It is unfair and wrong to say that there is

diversification if nuclear power takes the base load and other stations, especially coal-fired stations, take only peak-period load. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian was saying. We cannot make the decision. Why have an inquiry for six months and a report, and then ignore it? Will the Government do the same with Gartcosh?

Mr. Kynoch: There seems to be a split in the Labour party about the interconnector. The hon. Member for East Lothian and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) are arguing one way, whereas the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is arguing the other. I wonder whether they could elucidate for the House what Labour party policy is on the subject—and what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) might say about it.

Mr. Home Robertson: Can the hon. Gentleman cite any precedent for a Secretary of State mucking about with the findings of a reporter at a public inquiry? If the right hon. Gentleman intends to change the ground rules in that way, is there anything to stop my constituents, or people elsewhere, asking for existing sections of the transmission system to be put underground, on exactly the same grounds as those being cited in South Ayrshire?

Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me earlier, he would have heard clearly what the Secretary of State says. I hope that he will agree that it is only proper for my right hon. Friend fully to consider all the arguments put before the public inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Minister with responsibility for the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment has asked Northern Ireland Electricity to think again about the site of the converter station at Islandmagee. Clearly there are important issues at stake for people on both sides of the Irish sea.
I shall now talk about Gartcosh.

Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Kynoch: Very briefly, because time is limited.

Mr. Gallie: I accept that the Secretary of State is right to take on board local opinions on such issues, and at least to re-examine them. I also accept that the Minister has not totally finished talking about this subject, but may I point out that, when the power station was built at Inverkip, a stretch of cable was put underground, to protect the environment, and that to the high costs involved must be added the continuing revenue costs for the maintenance of that underground cable?

Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note those comments by my hon. Friend, whom I am pleased to see here for the debate, because he has always expressed a great interest in power—[Laughter] I mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend has a great interest in power generation.
The hon. Member for East Lothian has also raised the matter of PowerGen's application to build a power station at Gartcosh. Hon. Members will know that the application has been referred by my right hon. Friend to a public inquiry, which should start next April. My right hon.
Friend has, as is entirely proper, written to the reporter explaining general Government policy on such matters, and mentioning the issues that at present appear to him most likely to be relevant to the decision that he will have to take.
The Government's general policy is clear: matters such as need, location, design and choice of fuel for power stations are usually best left to developers in line with their own commercial judgment. As I have already said, that policy has brought substantial benefits to consumers.
Again, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about jobs in his constituency, but the Government strongly believe that competition in the industry is in the public's best interests. No one can easily predict the shape of the generating market in future, and it would be foolish for the Government to introduce uncertainty to the market now, when it is showing how successful it is in delivering cheaper and more reliable supplies of electricity.
There does, however, seem to be confusion in some quarters as to what my right hon. Friend's statement actually means for the scope of the inquiry. I should therefore like to make it absolutely clear that it is for the reporter to decide what evidence he believes should be laid at the inquiry. There is no question of my right hon. Friend seeking to limit the scope of that inquiry.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: No, I must press on, because of the time.
The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about nuclear privatisation. I would say that the new arrangements are settling down well. I remain confident that Scottish Nuclear will continue to be an important part of the Scottish economy, and that nuclear power remains safe.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Torness and safety. That, of course, is a matter for the company, within the rigorous safety standards policed by the nuclear installations inspectorate. I know that the matter is paramount for the company.
Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric are, of course, bound to take Scottish Nuclear's output until 2005 under the nuclear energy agreement. That gives substantial certainty to Scottish Nuclear, enabling it to plan for the future. I am confident that it will rise to the challenge of competition with other generators.
Both in his letter to the Secretary of State and in his speech this morning, the hon. Gentleman referred to opencast mining. I shall look forward to seeing him when he visits me, but I must point out that responsibility for dealing with planning applications and local planning matters rests in the first instance with the local council concerned.
The Government have put in place a firm regulatory and legislative regime to encourage competition and innovation in the energy industries. I am surprised at the defeatist attitude that Opposition Members have taken towards the ability of Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric, together with the Scottish mining industry, to deal with competition.
Let me remind the House that, since privatisation, the two Scottish electricity companies have not only participated in the competitive market that the

Government created in 1990 but have done so successfully. They have competed fiercely with each other in Scotland—

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: No, I shall not, because I have four minutes left, and I want to complete my speech so as to cover the topic.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Kynoch: Opposition Members have had quite a say in the debate. Clearly there is a significant split on the Opposition Benches, but there is an Opposition split on almost every policy—and I would like to finish my speech.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that I am speaking as a constituency Member of Parliament elected to represent Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, not as a Labour party spokesperson?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am sure that that is true, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Kynoch: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course he will speak for his constituents, but it would be reasonable to think that there might have been some consensus on the Opposition Benches on a topic that may have such a major impact on Scotland.
I was talking about the two Scottish electricity companies and their success in competing fiercely with each other in Scotland, and also in the market in England and Wales. Of course some business has been lost to suppliers from England, and more business may be lost in future. But both companies have been successful in doing much more of their business in England and Wales, especially since Scottish Power's successful acquisition of MANWEB and Southern Water, which was mentioned by Opposition Members.
As for coal, the Scottish electricity industry has said that it will continue to buy Scottish coal so long as it is competitive in price and quality, and it is taking as much as the coal industry can produce. I have no doubt that the industry will respond to the challenge, and will continue to be a successful supplier to Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric.
Certainly those companies' commitment to coal has been maintained—indeed, increased. Power stations have been fitted with special burners that reduce the amount of nitrous oxides emitted. Scottish Power has secured a substantial European Community grant to test gas over-burning at Longannet power station, with a view to raising its efficiency and reducing emissions. I was most impressed with what I saw when I visited Longannet not long ago.
The company is also testing at Longannet a new technique that extracts sulphur dioxide efficiently from flue gas. Those developments all exemplify the


entrepreneurial attitude of both Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric, and augurs well for their ability to deal with the competitive threats that the future undoubtedly holds. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) want to say something?

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Minister has not yet explained to us how all that competitiveness and all those entrepreneurial skills and the rest square with buying a water company in the south of England. What is a Scottish electric company doing buying such a company?

Mr. Kynoch: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased and proud of a Scottish company using its expertise to diversify, in the interests of the efficiency of service delivery.
No market is static, and change is inevitable. Opposition Members sometimes find that difficult to take, but the policies of the Government have released the entrepreneurial drive of those major Scottish companies so that they can meet the challenges that face them. Competition drives down costs—

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have less than one minute left.
Competition encourages innovative approaches to the provision of services, and that can only be good for consumers and employees—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Working Time Directive

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation he intends to bring forward to implement the working time directive. [5779]

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department is doing to ensure that the provisions of the working time directive are implemented in the United Kingdom. [5785]

Mr. Benton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking to ensure that the provisions of the working time directive are implemented in the United Kingdom. [5789]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I shall issue a consultation document on the working time directive shortly. We will do all we can to prevent damage to British businesses and jobs from the implementation of this directive.

Mr. Hogg: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that Britain and Italy are the only European Union countries where workers have no legal right to paid holidays? Is he further aware that 2.5 million British employees have no paid holidays, and no legal entitlement to paid holidays? Will those people have a feel-good factor this Christmas? Is the right hon. Gentleman doing all this to placate the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Back Benches?

Mr. Lang: The directive is, of course, about much more than holidays. I welcome the fact that working conditions and holidays—their length and quality—have improved out of all recognition as a result of the successful growth and expansion of the British economy in recent years. The Government consider that these matters should be negotiated by employers and employees at the workplace, taking account of the circumstances of the company and its ability to enter negotiations with its employees.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State accept that long working hours harm family life? If so, why is the Tory party—which calls itself the party of the family—doing so much to harm family life?

Mr. Lang: Working hours in this country have been getting shorter, and that may well continue to happen. Working hours and conditions should be negotiated by the employer and the employee at the company or workplace, and not by bureaucrats in Brussels.

Mr. Benton: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many men and women in my Bootle constituency work excessively long hours, often for a low wage? Does he agree that that is in no way conducive to family life? Will he look again at the directive and make

an effort to eliminate the activities of unscrupulous employers who thrive on offering low wages and long working hours? That would give an added inducement to family life. If the right hon. Gentleman looks again at the directive, he will find that he has a great opportunity to do just that.

Mr. Lang: Family life is best enhanced by an expanding economy creating additional jobs. In those countries with social conditions that are rigid and burdensome on companies, the consequence is that the number of jobs reduces. That is one of the reasons why unemployment in this country has been falling for several years and now stands at just over 7 per cent., whereas the EU average is more than 11 per cent.

Mr. Batiste: Is the real issue not what the directive says but the fact that issues of this kind must be determined in this country rather than in Brussels? If subsidiarity and our opt-out of the social chapter mean anything, all these issues have to be determined in our country. That is why people are so upset by the directive.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the context of the social chapter opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht, that has been clearly understood in the past. That the matter should be decided in this country by employers and employees at the workplace is central to the Government's determination that the issue will be resolved in our favour at the intergovernmental conference.

Mr. Congdon: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's intention widely to consult business and industry to try to minimise the cost of that crazy directive for companies in this country. Will he assure me that the Government will redouble their efforts to prevent our European partners from imposing social costs on us by the back door?

Mr. Lang: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is not insignificant that the additional burdens on business in this country represent 18 per cent. of the wage roll, whereas in Germany the figure is 32 per cent. and in France 41 per cent. That may help to explain why unemployment in Germany is more than 10 per cent. and in France more than 12 per cent.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Mr. Bryan Cassidy, the Conservative Member of the European Parliament representing my area, suggested that implementation of the directive might not require Her Majesty's Government to impose any penalties on British business. Could we implement the directive and impose no penalties on any business that was in breach of it?

Mr. Lang: It is precisely such points that I hope will become clear in the consultation period, and I envisage that we will consult for a period of three months to enable all such submissions to be put to the Government for further consideration.

Mr. Barry Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman help my constituents at Shotton steelworks, who work a 12-hour shift rota and want to continue to do so? Is he


aware that it is the only steelworks in the industry that works that rota? The workers would be grateful if he would confirm that they will be allowed to continue such work.

Mr. Lang: Indeed they will. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench heard him. I also welcome the fact that Shotton is doing so well as a result of privatisation and of the improved efficiencies that have flowed from it.

Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the working time directive has nothing to do with shorter working weeks and that it is simply a European manifestation of the socialist and corporatist nonsense that we had in this country in the 1960s and 1970s? It is an attempt to get more money for the same or less work; such practice is making continental Europe uncompetitive and Britain competitive in world markets.

Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's central point. It is precisely to maintain the competitiveness in our economy that, during the consultation period, we are seeking to identify ways to minimise the cost of implementing the directive and to avoid unnecessary burdens, and to decide how best to exercise the derogations and flexibilities that have been negotiated as a result of the efforts of previous British Ministers.

Mrs. Beckett: Surely the Secretary of State has not forgotten that the Government's case against the directive is supposed to be that it is not a health and safety matter and that he claimed that that was supported by Professor Harrington's report. Although Professor Harrington was critical of some of the studies on which the directive was based, because they related mostly to shift work, he went on to draw attention to the risks to health and safety of inadequate rest periods and pointed out that a review of the evidence showed that working 48 to 56 hours was probably detrimental to health and safety—the opposite of what the Secretary of State claimed.
As the directive was negotiated before the opt-out on the social chapter and could not conceivably be a sneaky way around it, does that not show that, yet again, the Government are being incompetent and dishonest and acting in bad faith, which is why people can no longer trust the Tories?

Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the right hon. Lady should take that line. She misrepresented Professor Harrington's report the last time we had an exchange on the matter and she seems to be trying to do the same again today. The study states that the scientific basis for establishing optimal hours of work is in doubt. The last time she stood at the Dispatch Box on this subject, she suggested that the Government were suppressing a report by the Department of Health on stress at the workplace, and it transpired that the report had been published six months earlier, so I think that she has quite a lot to apologise for.

"Industrial Action and Trade Unions"

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the representations he has received about the Green Paper "Industrial Action and Trade Unions". [5780]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Green Paper was published on 19 November and the consultation period lasts until the end of February next year. To date, I have received one representation, from the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that the people of Britain welcome the transformation of industrial relations over the past 17 years, which is due to the reforms of the Conservative party, which were opposed by the Labour party. Does he also recognise that London commuters and those who occasionally receive letters in London are fed up with the disruption of postal and London Underground services by strikes and with the sponsored silence of Labour Members whenever there is a strike?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is certainly right and I am sure that the majority of the British people agree with him.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister accept that one important aspect of democracy is the right to strike? That right must be preserved at all costs. On costs to industry, the best change for industry would be removal of this totally discredited Government.

Mr. Taylor: The more important conclusion is that the number of strikes in the public sector is much higher than in the private sector. Clearly, we must do more about privatisation.

Mr. David Shaw: When my hon. Friend considers the representations that he has received, will he look carefully at the accounts of the trade unions that made representations? Will he examine the political funds and parliamentary panels and ensure that how much they contribute to the office and other expenses of Labour Members is published? Much of the information in those union accounts is not identifiable and one cannot discover which Labour Members receive money in that way.

Mr. Taylor: I am certainly prepared to take those points into account. The unions are paymasters to the Labour party to the tune of millions of pounds. That may well explain why the Labour party does not agree with the Green Paper.

Privatised Utilities

Mr. Hanson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the regulators of privatised utilities to discuss profit levels. [5782]

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): The regulation of the privatised utilities is a matter for the independent regulators. I have regular


meetings with the director general of the Office of Telecommunications to discuss telecommunications matters generally.

Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that, since privatisation, electricity companies alone have had profits of £9 billion? Does he agree that that hardly smacks of firm regulation in the interests of prices for consumers? Will he say how he intends to ensure further regulation of privatised utilities, and will he support Labour's call for a windfall tax to put the money to good use?

Mr. Taylor: I certainly will not support Labour's absurd windfall tax, which would penalise the consumer first. It would also penalise the investment proposals of the privatised utilities and greatly damage their long-term success. Industrial electricity prices have fallen 15 per cent. in real terms, which is of enormous benefit to industry. Even some elements of the Labour party, such as the Fabian Society, know that the attempted fiddling of Labour Front Benchers with the RPI minus X formula is ultimately likely to damage consumers as well as the industries.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Has my hon. Friend seen reports that Mr. Cruickshank, the Director General of Telecommunications, has expressed anxiety about the threat of a windfall tax and suggested that it would make it difficult for him to fulfil his regulatory responsibilities? Does that not clearly imply that, in the event of such a tax being imposed, he would feel that he had to relax correspondingly some of the price constraints that he currently imposes on British Telecom to maintain satisfactory investment in our communications industry? Would that not mean that a windfall tax would be paid directly by consumers?

Mr. Taylor: That is an assumption that one might reasonably make. I have seen remarks attributed to the director general voicing those concerns. The simple fact is that the Labour party has not fully understood the implications of independent regulators. If an independent regulator is looking at stimulating competition in the industry and looking after consumer interests, it is likely that he will raise a question mark about madcap schemes that are likely to damage the industry.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister accept from me that the Liberal Democrats oppose a windfall tax, because we believe that it is wrong in principle and would be difficult to enforce? If there are excess profits within the utilities, that money has come from the consumers and should go back to them. Will the Minister ensure that measures are introduced to ensure that the consumers benefit? As I represent one of the areas of the country that has the coldest and longest of winters, will he also ensure that the regulator does more to use what resources exist within the utilities to increase energy efficiency and reduce fuel poverty?

Mr. Taylor: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about energy efficiency. Various aspects of the Government's policy and that pursued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment prove that we take that issue seriously. The whole purpose of regulation is to benefit the consumer as well as to

stimulate investment. The RPI minus X formula gives an incentive to industry to increase efficiency and profits and then to plough back more in investment. I am sure that the independent regulators will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the nonsenses of the Labour party's windfall tax proposal is that it arises out of the politics of envy, which is so prevalent on the Labour Benches? The Labour party did not do its calculations correctly, because it thought that that tax would hit only the bosses of the privatised industries, and it did not realise when it announced its proposal that it would directly attack consumers. But the penny has dropped with the consumers. It is too late for the Labour party to back out of that proposal, even though it has tried to back out of everything else that it has always really stood for.

Mr. Taylor: The Labour party's inability to focus on the real issues that interest consumers is increasingly apparent. I also point out that the windfall tax would not help pensioners in any way. That is another matter that the Labour party must address quickly.

Mr. Battle: I wonder whether the Minister is even aware that no less a body than the Institute of Directors, not known to be a supporter of the Labour party, has said of our plans for a one-off windfall levy:
We acknowledge that some of the utilities do have spare funds at the moment and that the economic impact of the tax might therefore be insignificant.
What will the Minister do to ensure that, when the regional electricity companies are taken over, they remain within the reach of the regulator and that their profits are not hidden or spirited away? Recently, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the Minister for Energy, went before the Select Committee and said that he believed that the system of regulation was so ad hoc and unaccountable that it needed to be overhauled. Does the Minister support that suggestion, or will consumers have to wait for the election of a Labour Government to tackle that problem?

Mr. Taylor: Given the basis of the windfall tax, consumers must look forward with dread to the arrival of a potential Labour Government, because of the damage that would do to their interests in relation to those industries.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read about the great concern registered by the Confederation of British Industry about the impact of the tax, not least on the cost of capital, which would ultimately feed through into higher prices for the consumer.
As for the competition policy exercised by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, such facts are taken into account when he comes to any conclusion. Regulation and its impact are of continuing importance to the interests of the industry and the growth of competition within it. The Director General of Electricity Supply recently made detailed proposals about such competition for 1998.

Mr. Atkins: Has my hon. Friend had conversations with the Director General of Telecommunications about the increasing problems of the cloning of digital


telephones, which causes immense inconvenience to many people, not least some of my constituents, particularly when they realise that the machines and devices used for the cloning of their telephones can be bought in the average store? That equipment can damage, with impunity, the rights and interests of ordinary people who use their mobile telephones in the ordinary way.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that matter, because cloning costs the mobile telephone industry about £100 million a year; therefore, that impacts on the public as well in certain areas. Although the problem will be reduced as we move to digital mobile telephony, know as GSM, it is nevertheless always possible that the criminals will become more sophisticated. In those circumstances, I warmly welcome the private Member's Bill that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), and I commend it to the House.

Deregulation

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since the beginning of the deregulation initiative in January 1994; and how many statutory instruments were introduced over the same period. [5783]

The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): Since 1 January 1994, my Department has revoked 93 regulations and over the same period introduced 315 statutory instruments.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree with the 19 Conservative Back Benchers who recently signed an early-day motion pointing out that the Government have, in fact, introduced 13 times as many statutory instruments as they have issued deregulation orders? Is that not another example of the Tory Government saying one thing and doing another?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman does not quite grasp the whole principle of the deregulation that is taking place. We live in an increasingly complex world, but I have to point out that, although he might try to take comfort from the 315 statutory instruments, 65 were deregulative, and so reduced the burdens, and 26 were fee orders. I hope that when, in the fulness of time, we come to legislation, we can give the parliamentary draftsmen the ability to give authority to the Secretaries of State to increase fees—say, in line with inflation—within tight regulative limits.
The other side of the measures is that they are methods of consumer protection. Would the hon. Gentleman want the removal of those regulations that give protection against babies' dummies containing carcinogenic materials or of those that protect consumers from unsafe electrical and gas appliances? There is a great deal of consumer protection in those regulations.

Mrs. Roche: Small businesses up and down the country would have been longing for the Minister to sit down, not because they were not interested in hearing him, but because they wanted him to be put out of his misery.
Given that the Minister does not agree with the 19 of his Back Benchers and a former Minister for Trade who have views on deregulation that differ from the Government's, what has he to say to the Institute of Directors which, in its recently published and well-received report, said that the problem with regulation and burdens on small business is that there are too many regulations, the rules are too complicated and they are not enforced in a fair or consistent way? Given the Government's record, does that not show why small businesses all over the country are saying that enough is enough with this Government?

Mr. Page: As the small business Minister, I am more than aware of the effect that regulations have on small business. The hon. Lady conveniently puts to one side the initiatives taken by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. In fact, more than 750 regulations have already been repealed or amended—more than 400 in the past 12 months. We expect the total to rise by 1,000 at the end of this year.
I look the hon. Lady straight in the eye as I tell her that we have put in place a system of regulation to make sure that anything coming forward is looked at to make sure that it has a cost in relationship to benefit, that a risk analysis has taken place and that there is no gold-plating. In addition, of course, we consult with appropriate bodies.
Even our representations in Europe are having some effect. Mr. Jacques Santer has said that he wants to see fewer and better regulations coming forward, and that is exactly what is happening. The Government are looking after small business.

Working Time Directive

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had over health and safety aspects of the working time directive. [5784]

Mr. John M. Taylor: I continue to believe that the measures in that directive are mainly about terms and conditions of employment and not about health and safety, but my Department will be initiating a thorough consultation process very shortly.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the working time directive, which is causing much concern to successful businesses in my constituency. was adopted as a health and safety measure? In the light of this country's admirable record on health and safety, is it not ridiculous that social engineering is being introduced under the emotive guise of health and safety? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government, at the intergovernmental conference, will defend vigorously our admirable opt-out and do away with that most unwelcome measure?

Mr. Taylor: I give that assurance. My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in these matters. He is correct to say that that directive is wrong in law, has the wrong


treaty base and is wrong in practice. Moreover, these things should be decided here, not in Brussels, and should be decided here between employer and employee.

Mr. Clapham: If the Minister believes that the directive is not related to health and safety, will he tell the House why there are more accidents at the end of a long shift than at the beginning?

Mr. Taylor: I think it is pertinent to recognise that in this country, we have the widest spread of working hours in Europe. Our average working hours are pretty much the same as those in the rest of Europe: some people work shorter hours in this country; some work longer. It is part of the flexibility of our labour market.

Utilities (Privatisation)

Mr. Dover: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of privatisation on the performance of the utilities. [5786]

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Greg Knight): Privatisation, with independent regulation, has brought substantial benefits to the consumer in the form of lower prices, higher standards of service and wider choice, and it has led to a welcome improvement in efficiency.

Mr. Dover: Will the Minister confirm that, in addition to all those benefits, there has been an enormous increase in capital investment—indeed, in the water industry, £600 or more per household throughout the country? That has meant that North West Water in my area has been much more able to solve any water contamination problems and to improve water quality across the board. That has been nothing but good for local residents.

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Since 1990, the water companies have invested about £15 billion and they intend to invest about £24 billion in future years to improve water quality. All that will be done at no cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of growing unease among many people that the maintenance and safety of power lines are deteriorating? Not only was that manifested in the problems during the recent cold weather, but the Department of Trade and Industry must be aware that a farmer in my constituency had several of his livestock electrocuted and his wife injured by electricity leaking from such power lines. Will the Minister examine the standard of regulation to ensure that no corners are cut in maintaining the standard of power lines, thereby maintaining the safety of those who might otherwise be seriously injured?

Mr. Knight: Currently, the electricity companies invest about £1 billion a year, so there is record investment. However, the hon. Gentleman raises a very important

point. I am not aware of the circumstances of the case in his constituency; if he would care to send me details, I will certainly consider the matter.

Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the safety record of the privatised electricity suppliers? Have not accidents in those industries plummeted since privatisation?

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is right: higher investment levels have generally led to better safety.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that companies such as North West Water, which have a monopoly to connect sewers and water supplies for builders building new properties, are ripping off those builders and charging about 10 times a realistic price? Is it not time that that rip-off was stopped, so that people building houses can get a fair deal?

Mr. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman really wanted a detailed reply to that question, he would have provided specific details. I invite him to do so, and I shall look into it.

Small Firms

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to visit business links in East Anglia to discuss measures to encourage small firms. [5787]

Mr. Page: I have no plans at present to visit business links in East Anglia. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was in Norwich on Monday last, when he met very many small business men and several representatives from business link.

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. His right hon. Friend the Minister for industry went down very well when he visited Norwich, and I have had good feedback from business link and the local training and enterprise council.
Is the Minister aware that the business link in my constituency, which recently took over from the enterprise agency, has already established itself as an excellent one-stop shop for small and medium-sized businesses? Is he further aware that the link is currently in the process of merging with the local training and enterprise council and the chamber of commerce? Can he assure me that, when such mergers take place, the focus of business links will not be lost? Can he tell me the precise role of business links in reducing unemployment in constituencies like mine?

Mr. Page: The business link in Norwich began a year and a week ago, and I have had reports of significant progress. It will supply the drive to ensure that small businesses in the area operate to the high professional standards necessary to compete in the world's industrialised markets. I know that the business link is working hard to put together a series of packages to identify finance for small firms. I also know that unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency—


I looked it up before I came here—is as low as 5.5 per cent. That is still far too high, of course, and I hope that the business link initiative will bring it down much lower.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is not the problem for small businesses in Norwich, Peterborough, Basildon, Harlow and many other constituencies that. will be in the cockpit at the next general election the fact that far too many people are unemployed and therefore lack the purchasing power to sustain small businesses? Is not the answer to get Britain back to work, so that people have money to spend and can actually pay taxes to fund essential public services as well as purchasing the services and products of small businesses?

Mr. Page: I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman is such a firm supporter of Conservative party policies. Under this Government unemployment has dropped steadily for the past few years: we are going in a completely different direction from the rest of Europe and I am convinced that it is the small business sector that is driving that success forward. What would kill that sector would be the minimum wage and the social contract that the Labour party wants to impose on small businesses.

Business Grants

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from trading standards officers about the activities of companies selling advice on access by traders to business grants. [5790]

Mr. Greg Knight: The Department is actively working with the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards departments in cases of misrepresentation. Firms should be aware that their local business link can offer reliable advice free or at low cost.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has obviously been briefed on the activities of European Business Services in the north-west of England, which is ripping off small business men in my constituency. Cannot the law in this area be reviewed, the more so as it is proving extremely difficult to prosecute companies such as EBS even when it is clear that they have been involved in forms of criminal conspiracy?

Mr. Knight: I have been briefed to the extent that a similar scam has been operating in my constituency and I take the same view of such practices. We already have in place certain safeguards: the Sale of Goods Acts, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Those pieces of legislation can be used by trading standards officers to prosecute when an offence has clearly been committed.

Singapore Summit

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his priorities are for the World Trade Organisation summit in Singapore in December. [5792]

Mr. Lang: I have three priorities: first, the substantial work programme to carry forward trade liberalisation in the WTO; secondly, the completion at least in outline of

an information technology agreement aimed at the progressive elimination of tariffs on products with the widest possible participation by WTO member countries; thirdly, real progress on negotiations to liberalise basic telecommunications, which are scheduled to conclude by February 1997.

Mr. Arnold: I am very encouraged by my right hon. Friend's reply, which shows that Britain is a leading campaigner for free world trade. When my right hon. Friend goes to the summit meeting, will he strongly oppose the Helms-Burton Act passed by the United States, which has the effect not just of preventing Americans from trading with Cuba but of imposing restrictions on third countries? I am sure that this House condemns the Cuban regime as the last remaining undemocratic country in Latin America, but the Helms-Burton Act is not the way to go about it: the way to deal with the problem is in political forums, not by damaging world free trade.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the matter was debated in Standing Committee recently and I agree with him. We have made it clear to the Americans in robust terms that we disapprove of that extra-territorial action on their part. As my hon. Friend will know, President Clinton has suspended title III for a six-month period, but that does not remove the uncertainty or the continuing threat of title III, and title IV continues to apply. I hope that the Helms-Burton Act will not remain in place and that the matter will be disposed of. On the broader issue of support for free trade and trade liberalisation, I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend of the Government's strong commitment to pursuing that agenda.

Mr. Foulkes: Why does the Secretary of State not support the social chapter of the World Trade Organisation, which is being promoted by a number of countries, including the United States, and would outlaw such appalling practices as child labour? Why is the Secretary of State so dogmatic that anything called a social chapter, however good it is, must automatically be opposed by the Government?

Mr. Lang: This Government defer to no other Government in our condemnation of child labour. We are signatories of the United Nations convention on human rights and we believe that such matters should be pursued through the appropriate organisations. The World Trade Organisation, however, is a body concerned with trade. The best way in which we can help to improve working conditions in other countries is to open trade with them, to increase that trade and to help prosperity to spread.

Mr. Rathbone: As my right hon. Friend pursues the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and other matters, will he remind the House how beneficial it will be for us to speak as part of the membership of the European Union?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. Membership of the European Union enables the United Kingdom to participate in a major trading bloc. Nevertheless, it is also important that we promote the free trade agenda to which we subscribe, which is not so robustly supported by some of our partners in the EU.

Mr. Bell: May I tell the President of the Board of Trade and the House that, in relation to the Helms-Burton Act,


the Opposition give their full support to the Government? We did so in Committee this morning and will continue to give our full support on that issue.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), why does the Secretary of State want to build world trade on the back of human rights? Why is he not prepared to accept a working party at the WTO next week to deal with forced labour, exploitative child labour and the lack of trade union rights and collective bargaining at the workplace in the third world? Why does he not support the United States, the French Government and the rest of our European partners on that?

Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on the Helms-Burton issue. On working conditions in other countries, we have seen evidence of how the Labour party would like to intervene and control working conditions in this country and to encourage the European Community to intervene and control them, thus adding to the burdens on business in Britain. The hon. Gentleman seeks to carry that interventionism to every other country around the world. Does he not recognise that imposing such burdens—imposing rigidities on the liberalisation of trade—would reduce economic activity, employment opportunities and the quality of working conditions in those countries? That epitomises perfectly the Opposition's protectionism and interventionism and shows that they do not support the free trade agenda.

Mr. Fabricant: Is not Britain the fifth largest exporter in the world, and does not a quarter of our gross domestic product come from exports? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to promote exports is not through trading blocs such as the North American Free Trade Area or the European Union, but through global free trade? Is not global free trade jeopardised by the sort of nonsense being promoted by the Opposition with their international social chapter—another barmy proposal from the barmy Opposition?

Mr. Lang: I agree with the statistics that my hon. Friend mentioned. He is right to emphasise the importance of promoting the multilateral free trade agenda. Free trading blocs can have their place, so long as they are not exclusive and do not confine their benefits to their members. We want the free trade agenda to be spread widely. If a bloc such as my hon. Friend describes contributes to that, it can form an acceptable part of the multilateral agenda. But the globalisation of trade liberalisation is our main objective.

"Industrial Action and Trade Unions"

Mr. Canavan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responses he has received to the White Paper, "Industrial Action and Trade Unions". [5793]

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on his recent Green Paper, "Industrial Action and Trade Unions"; and if he will make a statement. [5797]

Mr. Lang: The Green Paper, "Industrial Action and Trade Unions", was published on 19 November and the consultation period will last until the end of February next year. To date, I have received no written responses.

Mr. Canavan: Has ever a Green Paper on industrial relations so united the Trades Union Congress, the

Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Institute of Management and the Engineering Employers Federation, all of which have expressed their opposition to the ill-conceived legislative proposals which are widely perceived to be a simple pre-election gimmick and, thankfully, will never see the light of day as the Tories will be kicked out at the general election?

Mr. Lang: I have received no written responses yet, so the hon. Gentleman cannot possibly know what they will say. I cannot remember a trade union or industrial relations Green Paper that the Labour party has not opposed tooth and nail. By implementing the proposals in those Green Papers, the Government have succeeded in reducing the number of industrial disputes in this country so dramatically that we are now highly competitive, with vastly improved productivity. The number of days lost through strikes is currently about one twentieth the level under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend go further and confirm that 29 million days were lost through strikes under the last Labour Government? According to the latest figures, that figure has fallen to 437,000. Most of those strikes—some 70 per cent.—occur in the public utilities and in the public sector where there is no alternative service. Does that not show that the unions, encouraged by the Labour party, exploit the public when they are in a position to do so and that their power must therefore be curbed?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend's figures are correct. He is also right to identify the purpose of our Green Paper: it will ensure that the interests of the public, who depend on those monopoly services, are taken fully into account. Clearly, the Opposition do not care about the public. They do not care about the commuters left freezing on the platform, or the companies that depend upon the postal service delivering the mail on time. The Government do care, and we intend to ensure that people's rights are taken into account in future industrial disputes.

Clean Coal Technology

Mr. Tipping: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to promote the further development of clean coal technology. [5794]

Mr. Page: In the past 12 months, in partnership with United Kingdom industry and universities, we have initiated 51 clean coal technology research and development projects worth more than £16 million.

Mr. Tipping: Has the Minister seen estimates that, by the year 2003, more than half our electricity will be generated by gas? If that is correct, does it not imply, first, that the coal industry faces further difficulties and, secondly, that it is vital to invest in clean coal technology in the longer term to ensure security of supply?

Mr. Page: There are two aspects to my response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I believe that British industry can take advantage of a vast export market by using the types of technologies advanced through those research and development programmes. Secondly, the Government


believe that any demonstration of clean coal technology is best undertaken as part of the European Commission's development programme. The project could cost £300 million or £400 million. Officials took a group of industrialists to Brussels recently, and that is the best way to ensure that that sort of technology is introduced into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Beggs: In addition to the steps already taken, will the Minister make contact with the Environmental Engineering Concepts company in my constituency, which has produced a product that promotes almost 100 per cent. combustion and reduces noxious emissions and maintenance costs? That product would be invaluable in promoting clean coal technology.

Mr. Page: Since 1993, 43 United Kingdom companies have taken part in a host of projects that have produced the kind of product to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I could give the House a list of companies that have enjoyed extremely good export sales from technologies of that kind. I will ensure that my Department contacts that company to evaluate its position in the process.

Business Failures

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business failures there have been since April 1992. [5795]

Mr. Ian Taylor: Since the beginning of April 1992, there have been 80,780 company insolvencies, comprising 31,690 compulsory liquidations and 49,090 creditors' voluntary liquidations. In addition, there have been 119,509 bankruptcy orders.
In the most recent 12 months, company insolvencies accounted for 1.4 per cent. of the total number of companies registered, compared with 2.6 per cent. in 1992.
The overall number of company insolvencies has decreased by 43 per cent. since April 1992.

Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister saying that it is acceptable that more than 219,000 businesses have gone to the wall since the last election, including 10,000 in the last quarter? Does that not give the lie to the Minister's claims that Britain is the enterprise centre of Europe?

Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Lady understood business, she would understand that it is the exact opposite, because she has forgotten that there are 400,000 business starts per annum, which shows that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in this country. Nobody is pleased when a company ceases to trade or goes into insolvency, but it is nevertheless an expression of the risk that one can take in this country. I repeat that company insolvencies accounted for 1.4 per cent. of the total number of companies registered in this country. There are 3.7 million companies registered in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady looks at the proportions, she will realise that the entrepreneurial spirit is very much alive and well and is doing exceptionally well in this country.

Mrs. Peacock: How many more businesses are present in the United Kingdom, and how does that compare with the number that were here in 1979?

Mr. Taylor: There are currently 3.7 million businesses in the United Kingdom, compared with about 2.9 million when we came to power in 1979. The Government's success in favouring the smaller business community—for example, by the measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend's the Chancellor in the Budget last week—shows just why, overall, business has profited very well from the Conservative Government.

Firework Safety

Ms Lynne: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce further proposals to improve firework safety. [5796]

Mr. John M. Taylor: I place a very high priority on improving controls on fireworks. Following the thorough review that I initiated earlier this year, I am considering a number of possible measures.

Ms Lynne: Can the Minister at least guarantee that, by next 5 November, there will be stricter guidelines on the import of fireworks, especially from China, as those were most responsible for the horrific accidents? Will he also say whether there are any new proposals for tougher sentencing or tougher penalties on shopkeepers who sell fireworks to children?

Mr. Taylor: I am excluding nothing from the review that we are carrying out. In particular, I am considering how aerial shells can be controlled. These are, generically, the kind of fireworks to which the hon. Lady referred. I am prepared to look at the import licensing regime, which was replaced in 1993, but I have to tell the House that the Health and Safety Executive says that the single authorisation scheme which replaced that regime in no way weakens safety controls. In fact, it makes them more flexible.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why does the Minister not listen to the British fireworks business when it tells him that the abolition of import controls on fireworks has caused three deaths from aerial shells and that the Government's deregulation of firework safety regulations has caused injuries to soar to record levels? Does he not realise that the number of fireworks sold is likely to rise before new year's day as people celebrate with fireworks on that day? Why does he not now invoke section 11(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to take immediate action to ban aerial shells before more people are killed as a result of Government negligence in this matter?

Mr. Taylor: I do not accept that assertion. I do not accept its attribution either. I am taking this matter extremely seriously. As far as I am concerned, one person injured is too many. There are serious issues here and I am determined to get this right. Time spent now will be well spent—I assure the House of that.

Working Time Directive

Mr. Burden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation he intends to bring forward to implement the working time directive. [5798]

Mr. John M. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will issue a consultation document very shortly.

Mr. Burden: Surely it is disingenuous of the Government to continue to insist that this is not a health


and safety issue when it has been well established that there is a link between being forced to work excessively long hours and employee ill health. Does the Minister accept that even those such as the Confederation of British Industry who are opposed to the working time directive are calling on the Government to bring in clear guidelines to get the measure implemented and on the road? The Government are making themselves look stupid by continuing to sabre-rattle on a patently sensible suggestion.

Mr. Taylor: The United Kingdom observes the law, and we need to know what we can do about enforcement and derogation. This ground has already been covered. The Government think that this is not a health and safety matter at all but an employment matter and should be covered by the social chapter, in which case we would have the benefit of our opt-out. Those arguments will be carried whole-heartedly into the intergovernmental conference.

Research and Development

19. Mr. Olner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage change in total Government spending on research and development since 1985. [5799]

Mr. Ian Taylor: Estimated Government expenditure on research and development in 1996–97 is 36 per cent. higher than the cash expenditure in 1985–86.

Mr. Olner: In precise terms, there has been a reduction of 16.5 per cent. since 1985 in Government-funded research and development. Is it any wonder that we are now 15th out of 22 in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league in terms of spending on this sort of research and development? We are a manufacturing nation and we cannot go forward with any strength in the future without research and development that is properly funded. Are there are any hidden cuts in the science budget that was decided yesterday?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman forgets that his figures encompass defence expenditure, which has been declining. He also forgets the cessation of fast breeder reactor research and launch aid, so the statistics are naturally distorted. The science budget is up by 20 per cent. and the amount spent by universities and research councils is up by 12 per cent. over the period that we are discussing. That is very important for the long-term strength of our research and development base.
The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned that too many of our companies are not necessarily investing in research and development at the right intensity in relation to sales. I should like to see an improvement in that, given the dramatically increasing need for us to innovate and present new products which will compete in the wider world. There is certainly no lack of effort by the Government to ensure that the science base is strong.

Mr. Hoon: In the light of that answer, how does the Minister explain the Government's figures published the "Forward Look of Government Funded Science and Technology 1996", which shows that the severe cuts in

Government-funded research and development for both civil and defence purposes are set to continue. Why is the United Kingdom the only OECD country showing a real terms reduction in annual Government funding of civil research and development?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must have heard the earlier reply as I am sure that he normally pays great attention. There are various distorting factors in the total civil research budget. The figures that I gave for the science base, which include money for university infrastructure from the Higher Education Funding Councils and through the research councils, is up in real terms.
The Budget announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week specifically emphasised the Government's commitment to the science base by making sure that there is a cash increase year on year. That is important to ensure that the research councils' expenditure plans are safeguarded. Further details will be provided in January when we allocate to the various research councils. I assure the hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) that the United Kingdom's science base is strong and healthy and that our spending efficiency compared with other countries, not least those in the G7, is admirable.

Nuclear Industry

20. Mr. McAllion: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish TUC in relation to the privatisation of the nuclear industry. [5800]

Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.

Mr. McAllion: Did the Minister read last weekend's press reports in Scotland, which stated that Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric plan to build eight new nuclear power stations in the early years of the next millennium? Given that the Government's current policy is that there should be a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power stations, and the fact that there is increasing concern about radioactive leaks and leukaemia clusters around nuclear plants, does the Minister agree that it was the height of irresponsibility for the Government to push ahead with privatisation of the nuclear industry?

Mr. Page: The day the hon. Gentleman starts believing what he reads in newspapers is the day he is in real trouble—just as he cannot believe, for example, that the Labour party will win the next general election.

Investment

21. Mr. Purchase: To ask the President of the Board of Trade which countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development invest more per person than the United Kingdom. [5801]

Mr. Greg Knight: Investment can take many forms, both tangible and intangible. No figures are available to


make international comparisons of total investment in all its forms. Nevertheless, the investment climate in Britain is excellent. Cash flow is strong, taxes and interest rates are low, and domestic and overseas markets are growing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Mr. Purchase: Of course we welcome the fact that the climate is improving. It is a great pity, however, that the improvement has not been manifested in actual investment. As I pointed out at a previous Question Time, gross investment in the United Kingdom is not on a par with that in other OECD countries: we are 18th in that league—well behind Germany, France and Japan—and the position is not improving, but worsening. Gross investment has fallen by about 15 per cent. since the most recent general election. Will the Minister deal with those problems?

Mr. Knight: If the problems exist, it is because we started from such a low base due to the appalling lack of investment under the last Labour Government. Since 1979, total investment has grown faster in the United Kingdom than in France and Italy, and we have kept pace with Germany.

Working Time Directive

22. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that the United Kingdom is no longer required to implement the working time directive.[5802]

Mr. Lang: We shall insist that the intergovernmental conference addresses our concerns. As I told the House on 12 November, that means both ensuring that the working time directive no longer affects the United Kingdom and securing measures to prevent any other "social engineering" directives being forced on the United Kingdom by similar manoeuvres.

Mr. Brown: While I wish my hon. Friend success in those discussions, have not we learnt a clear lesson? Whatever opt-outs we may have on a single currency, the social chapter or whatever, will the Minister confirm that, when we sign those deals, we need to ensure that we are satisfied, five or 10 years down the track, that we have obtained something that means something to us? If we do not join the single currency and if we sign a special deal on the stability pact, is not the lesson to be learnt that we should ensure that we and the European Union agree on the meaning of that deal?

Mr. Lang: Of course I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, but he will be aware that the working time directive did not form part of the social chapter. Our objection to the working time directive is the way in which it was artificially brought into force through article 118A of the treaty, which is a health and safety

measure. By no stretch of the imagination can the working time directive properly be called a health and safety measure.

Mr. Sheerman: Surely the President of the Board of Trade is being dishonest in this matter—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sheerman: Misleading the House—

Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to re-phrase what he has said and to use proper language in the House, and not to accuse Ministers of misleading or anything else.

Mr. Sheerman: I withdraw it—economical with the truth, then. The President of the Board of Trade knows that that was the reason why the Government went to the European Court, but the decision went against them. If they are a party of law and order, they should now follow the court's judgment and implement the directive. That is the truth, is it not?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Government have already made it clear that we will implement the directive. At the same time, however, we will ensure at the intergovernmental conference that arrangements are made so that it ceases to have effect in the United Kingdom. Moreover, very soon we shall publish a consultation paper, and then take account of industry's attempts to reduce the burden that the directive will impose on us. We shall then introduce appropriate legislation.

"Industrial Action and Trade Unions"

23. Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the Green Paper, "Industrial Action and Trade Unions". [5803]

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Green Paper was published on 19 November and the consultation period lasts until the end of February next year. As I said earlier, to date I have received one representation—from the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Winnick: Clearly the rest have taken no notice of the Green Paper, which is irrelevant to industry and its needs. Is it surprising that people are beginning to wonder whether the Green Paper is part of the Secretary of State's political agenda to build up his prospects of succeeding the Prime Minister as Tory leader?

Mr. Taylor: To take the slightly serious part of that question, will the hon. Gentleman share his thoughts about the irrelevance of the Green Paper with those who have been inconvenienced by strikes on the underground, strikes in the postal services, strikes on the railways and strikes by the fire service, not least in Derbyshire? If the hon. Gentleman wants to be trivial about that inconvenience, he can suit himself, but the rest of the British people do not think like that.

Partial-Birth Abortion

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit partial-birth abortions.
Partial-birth abortion is defined in the Bill as
an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living foetus before killing the foetus and completing the delivery.
The procedure, which originated in the United States, is usually used after the 20th week of pregnancy, and often much later. The practitioner, guided by ultrasound, pulls the living unborn child through the mother's vagina, except for the child's head, which is deliberately kept just within the uterus. The practitioner then puts surgical scissors or another medical instrument into the back of the skull, inserts a catheter and sucks out the brains.
In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, wrote an eight-page paper explaining step by step how to perform the procedure. Haskell himself has performed more than 1,000 such procedures, for which he coined the term "D and X". It is also known as brain-suction abortion. A diagram illustrating the procedure has been circulated widely to hon. Members. It was confirmed as accurate by a spokesman for the American National Abortion Federation in evidence to the House of Representatives judiciary sub-committee in June 1995.
The Bill would amend the Abortion Act 1967 to prohibit the partial-birth abortion procedure. Under the Bill, any person performing a partial-birth abortion would be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. No proceedings would be brought without the consent of the Attorney-General. It would not be an offence for a medical practitioner to perform a partial-birth abortion if he or she reasonably believed that the procedure was immediately necessary to save the life of the mother, and that no other procedure would achieve that.
It is not known to what extent the technique may be practised in the United Kingdom. Provided that the terms of the 1967 Act are complied with, there is nothing to stop a practitioner from using it. Replies to parliamentary questions show that abortion notification forms do not specify whether abortions are carried out by that method.
The Secretary of State for Health has stated that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has asked all its members and fellows to ensure that they record details of any abortions involving intra-uterine decompression of the head of the foetus on HSA4—the form that notifies the chief medical officer of all abortions. However, there is no legal requirement for practitioners to notify the use of the technique.
In the partial-birth abortion method, a woman visits the abortion clinic on three successive days. On the first two days, her cervix is mechanically dilated with material called laminaria. The baby is removed on the third day. American Medical News reported on 5 July 1993 that two leading practitioners of the method, Dr. Haskell and Dr. McMahon, had stated in interviews:
the majority of foetuses aborted this way are alive until the end of the procedure.

Dr. Martin Haskell, the principal exponent of the technique in the United States—he has performed it more than 1,000 times—said in a tape-recorded interview with the American Medical News:
In my… case, probably 20 [per cent. of abortions by this method] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 per cent. are purely elective.
Elective abortion is another name for abortion on demand. Dr. Haskell's statement refutes the claim by some advocates of abortion that the procedure is used only where the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme foetal abnormality. The RCOG has claimed that the procedure would be used in Britain only in extreme cases of disability. Nevertheless, under the Abortion Act 1967, there is nothing to prevent a practitioner from using the technique in abortions certified under any grounds.
In the previous parliamentary Session, an early-day motion calling for a ban on partial-birth abortion was tabled. Several hon. Members signed an amendment objecting to such a ban, in which they cited the objections of the RCOG and the British Medical Association, and argued that it was not the role of Parliament to regulate the details of clinical procedures. No one suggests that the opinions of those bodies should be excluded from the debate, but there is particular cause for concern about the RCOG's opposition to a ban of the procedure in view of its guidelines on termination of pregnancy for foetal abnormality, which stipulate that, to avoid the possibility of prosecution,
a legal abortion must not be allowed to result in a live birth".
That means that steps must be taken to ensure that the unborn child is dead before being expelled from the mother. The practice of partial-birth abortion would conform with those guidelines.
In a paper opposing a similar Bill, which was sent to members of the other place at the time of the Bill's introduction by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Braine, the RCOG stated:
partial-birth abortion could be considered more respectful to the foetus than established methods of abortion… in which the foetus is removed from the uterus in fragments.
As the editor of The Sunday Telegraph aptly commented, "respectful" is not the first word that springs to mind at the description of the sucking out of a baby's brain.
The fact that an unborn child has a disabling condition is no reason for killing the child, and in such an appalling manner. Furthermore, disability in the child does not mean that the procedure is indicated for the benefit of the mother. Even in cases of hydrocephalus, a condition which enlarges the head of the foetus, there are alternative methods of clinical management. If necessary, a caesarean section can be performed.
Former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson wrote in 1983 that the "destructive operation" in which a baby's head was crushed to allow vaginal delivery became obsolete towards the end of world war two as a result of medical advances that greatly improved the safety of caesarean sections. In the light of Dr. Nathanson's observation, it is ironic that, despite continuing advances in modern obstetric care, partial-birth abortion is defended as though medicine had not progressed since the 1940s.
Furthermore, there is evidence that the procedure could endanger the mother. Dr. Pamela Smith, head of the obstetrics teaching programme at Mount Sinai hospital in Chicago, told the US Senate Judiciary Committee that the


partial-birth abortion procedure is an adaptation of a procedure occasionally used to deliver a baby in a breech position, but that that procedure carries risks for the mother and its use is recommended only to deliver the second baby in the birth of twins.
The Bill allows a medical practitioner to perform a partial-birth abortion if he or she reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary to save the life of the mother and that no other procedure will achieve that. Evidence that before the 10th week of human development foetal structures relating to pain are present and functional supports Dr. Giles' and others' opinion. Even many of those among us who do not agree with the principle of the right to life of the unborn child accept that avoidable suffering should not be inflicted on the foetus. Under current practices, there are more restrictions on how the remains of aborted babies may be disposed of than on how they may be killed.
It is perplexing that several hon. Members who called on the Government to ensure more humane treatment of veal calves signed the amendment opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion. Surely Parliament has no less interest in protecting the young of our own kind from cruel and unusual punishment than in protecting the welfare of animals. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Partial-birth abortion, more correctly described by doctors as intact dilatation and evacuation, is a procedure used on rare occasions by some doctors in the United States of America when they believe it to be in the best interests of the woman. It is not currently used in the United Kingdom. Members may have already noted from the Official Report that on several occasions Conservative Members have asked how many times partial-birth abortions have taken place. On each of those occasions, Ministers have repeatedly confirmed that they are not aware of that procedure being used in the United Kingdom. A Bill therefore to prohibit its use is clearly unnecessary and a misuse of the valuable time of the House.
The descriptions of the procedure, as it is supposedly carried out in the United States, are both inaccurate and misleading. Descriptions such as the one we have just heard contain horrific accounts of the foetus being partially delivered while alive. It is my understanding that, on the rare occasions when intact dilatation and evacuation is carried out in the United States, the foetal heart is humanely stopped before the procedure. President Clinton himself has recently vetoed attempts to ban the procedure, referring to it as a potentially life-saving, certainly health-saving, measure for a small but extremely vulnerable group of women and families.
Emotive, grisly descriptions of abortion procedures are often used by those who oppose abortion to shock and repulse people. The anti-choice movement considers it an important tactic because it believes that those who are

pro-choice attempt to deny what is involved when a pregnancy is ended. That is not the case. Those of us who support legal abortion do so because we believe that it is necessary for the well-being of the woman.
It seems that the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) is an attempt to reintroduce the topic of abortion to the House. She may expect that the emphasis on the details of that technique—her version—will attract support for further legislation to limit the availability of legal abortion. The present abortion law was accepted as necessary by a majority of both Houses in 1990. Nothing has changed since to justify any amendment.
Abortion at any stage of pregnancy is performed only after careful consideration and within the grounds permitted by law. Late abortions are often of wanted pregnancies, terminated because a severe foetal abnormality has been detected. Those women are especially vulnerable and it is important that when decisions are taken by doctors about the management of their care, they are free to act in the best interests of their patients.
When, earlier this year in another place, Lord Braine introduced a private Member's Bill to prohibit partial-birth abortion, it was opposed by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Those organisations support the view, which has also been expressed by Ministers in response to questions on the matter, that methods of abortion are a matter of clinical judgment.
As the procedure referred to as intact dilatation and evacuation is not used in this country, the Bill that the hon. Lady seeks leave to introduce would not affect abortion practice directly. It would, however, undermine the principle that a clinician should have freedom to choose the method of abortion most appropriate to a specific clinical situation.
That could interfere with doctors' ability to act in the interests of their patients. A gynaecologist or obstetrician could be convicted of a criminal offence, even when his or her peers considered the actions taken to be the safest and most appropriate management of an abortion. The clinical decisions taken by doctors could be influenced by their fear of prosecution. That would be an unacceptable outcome, and I ask the House to oppose the motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. A. J. Beith, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Joe Benton, Sir Michael Grylls, and Rev. Martin Smyth.

PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit partial-birth abortions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February, and to be printed [Bill No. 37].

Points of Order

Sir Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House noted with concern the demonstration that occurred yesterday, but it was with far greater concern that we noted another factor. We have seen demonstrations over many years, but we have seldom seen a demonstration that has had the support of Members within the Chamber. You made your views known very firmly, Madam Speaker, and I wonder whether those views might be reinforced if we could establish which Member of the House issued the tickets concerned. What further action might you be prepared to take to make it clear that the House will not accept support for demonstrations?

Madam Speaker: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point of order. It has been the custom of the House and all its Members to pay no attention on the infrequent occasions when demonstrations take place in the Gallery. I hope that that custom will be followed in future by all Members of the House. I might add that the tickets yesterday were provided by an Opposition Member; those today were provided by a Government Member.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is important not only who issued the tickets but whether, as you said, the demonstrators had support from the Floor of the House. When I went into the Members Lobby after the demonstration yesterday, I was concerned to see that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) appeared to have a great deal of knowledge when she briefed the press about what had happened. Clearly she knew what was on the banner, which had not been unfurled and so could not have been read from inside the Chamber. If Members were aiding and abetting such a demonstration, I hope that you will take the most serious view.

Madam Speaker: Of course I would, but I must have evidence. I have no reason to believe that Members of the House were aiding and abetting anything yesterday. I think that they were over-enthusiastic, and did not recognise their responsibilities to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is normal for there to be a period of reflection between Report and Third Reading of any Bill. This gives an opportunity for those who are affected to advise their Member of Parliament as to whether they wish him or her to support the Third Reading or not. This period of reflection will not be allowed in respect of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which is just another indication of how the Bill is being rushed through the House. In those circumstances, will you suggest to the Government that they explain how those affected can be consulted if there is no gap between the two stages?

Madam Speaker: It is not always the case that there is a period of reflection between one reading and another. Indeed, the House itself came to a conclusion that we should deal with the Bill in this way.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to the earlier point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will recall, I wrote you an extraordinarily warm, gracious and gentle letter yesterday, pointing out that as an old, old Member of the House, I do remember that the practice was that the Gallery does not exist. Yesterday—I regret having to make this point—there were two breaches of this practice. There was the recognition of Dame Vera Lynn—God bless her, but she should not be recognised as having sat in the Gallery. The second offence was not clapping the demonstration—Members are entitled to do that, in my view—but recognising that a demonstration had taken place. That was totally out of order. I will give as much muscle as I can to your powerful right arm if you enforce these regulations.

Madam Speaker: I have already made my views clear on one of the points. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—in this Chamber, we do not recognise what goes on in the Gallery. On his second point, the hon. Gentleman wrote me a charming letter. But, unhappily, I have to say that he is quite wrong about Dame Vera Lynn. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who put the question, did not make the point that the lady was in the Gallery, but that she was in the precincts of the House. There is a very clear distinction.

Mr. Faulds: I stand corrected, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Another charming letter tomorrow will be appreciated.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), Madam Speaker. Since he named me specifically, may I say that I had no knowledge of the demonstration yesterday, nor of the demonstration today? However, I am well aware of the issues that were being raised. It is a question of genocide, and I have campaigned on this issue since 1989. It is regrettable that, in order to draw the attention of this House and the press to the issue and to the policy of the British Government, people have been forced to demonstrate in the Gallery.

Madam Speaker: We must now move on.

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,

That the Report [3rd December] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Peter Atkinson.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.80 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:

That the resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 26th November be varied by substituting for the provisions of that Resolution the following provisions:

'That—
(1) the order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall he new Clauses relating to air weapons, new Clauses relating to compensation, other new Clauses, amendments to Clauses, amendments to Schedules.


(2) on the allotted day which under the order of 18th November (as varied by the Order of 25th November) is to be given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading those proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion as follows.

Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


New Clauses relating to air weapons
5 p.m.


New Clauses relating to compensation
7.30 p.m.


Remaining proceedings on Consideration
11 p.m.


Third Reading
Midnight

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

[ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Committee), and not amended (in the Standing Committee).

New clause 5

FIREARMS POWERED BY COMPRESSED CARBON DIOXIDE

.'—Any reference to an air rifle, air pistol or air gun—
(a) in the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1996; or
(b) in the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 or the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) (Scotland) Rules 1969,
shall include a reference to a rifle, pistol or gun powered by compressed carbon dioxide.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 3—Extension of power of Secretary of State to require a certificate for air weapons—
'. Section 1(3)(b) of the 1968 Act (which exempts air weapons from the requirements of that section unless declared specially dangerous) shall be amended by substituting for the words "declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act to be specially dangerous" the words "specified by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act.".'.

New clause 2—Power of Secretary of State to vary certain age limits—
'After section 24 of the 1968 Act, there shall he inserted the following section—
"Power of Secretary of State to vary provisions of s.22 and s.24
24A.—(1) The Secretary of State may. by order
(a) vary any age limit, or
(b) extend to firearms, shot guns or air weapons the application of any provision,
specified in section 22 (acquisition and possession of firearms by minors) or section 24 (supplying firearms to minors) of this Act.
(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.
(3) Any order under this section which provides only for the increase of any age limit or age limits shall be laid before Parliament and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
(4) Any order under this section which includes any provision of a kind other than that specified in subsection (3) above shall he laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House.".'.
Government amendments Nos. 80 and 81.

Miss Widdecombe: I regret that I must urge the House to resist new clauses 2 and 3. I shall deal first with new clause 2, and Opposition Members will not be surprised


to hear that I cannot accept it. We had a long debate on the subject in Committee, and my position now is no different from what it was then.
Age limits for firearms were not examined by Lord Cullen. There are sometimes good reasons why young people need, and can benefit from, proper and controlled access to firearms—for instance, if they are growing up on a farm. The current law allows for that. The Firearms Consultative Committee—the independent committee that advises the Government on firearms matters—looked at the subject of age limits in firearms legislation in its third annual report of 1991–92, and concluded that further restrictions were not necessary. In reaching that view, the committee was conscious of the value of allowing young people access to firearms so that they can learn at an early age, and under strict supervision, the correct way of handling them and the importance of safety measures.
The committee considered again the question of air rifles and young shooters generally in its sixth annual report, as recently as 1994–95. It concluded that the law should be simplified in relation to young people but did not recommend any further restrictions on their access to air weapons, shotguns or firearms. It stressed again the importance of introducing young people to shooting under proper adult supervision, which is more likely to make them become responsible adult shooters. All the Firearms Consultative Committee's reports are in the Library of the House.
I sympathise with the desire to take another look at the restrictions, which are complicated. That is why I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee to refer the matter back to the FCC. We have asked it to examine the issue afresh and report back to the Government before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses, and we await that report with interest.
Even if we were to agree to changes in the age limits, I do not think that it would be right for the Government to make changes in that important matter by the negative resolution procedure, as new clause 2 would have us do. It is important that any changes to that vital aspect of firearms legislation are made with the full and positive consent of Parliament. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
Nor can I support new clause 3. There was considerable debate on air weapons in the Committee. As I said then, the Firearms Consultative Committee examined the subject of air weapons in its second annual report and concluded that the tightening of the present controls on air weapons would not reduce weapon misuse to any substantial extent. In reaching that conclusion, the committee said:
The Committee were aware, that a balance needed to be struck between the imposition of controls designed to prevent the unlawful use of air weapons and the need to avoid curtailing the legitimate activities of many shooters who use them responsibly, for vermin control or in pursuit of their sport, without any danger whatsoever to the public safety or the peace. We were aware that air weapons are used extensively in target shooting and to train young shots in the basics of good gun handling and marksmanship.
Those are important points, which should not be forgotten.
I understand the concerns about misuse of, and breaking the law on, air weapons. That is why we have asked the Firearms Consultative Committee to consider the issue again following the debate in Standing Committee, in which I undertook to draw the FCC's attention to the points that had been made.
The possession of many air weapons already requires a firearm certificate. The distinction between those air weapons, defined as high powered, that need a certificate and those, defined as low powered, that do not, is based on a measure of the muzzle velocity of the weapon.
An air pistol with a muzzle energy of greater than 6 ft/lb or, for any other air weapon, greater than 12 ft/lb, requires a firearm certificate. Those limits are set by the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Regulations 1969 and the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) (Scotland) Regulations 1969. The Firearms Consultative Committee will consider whether those muzzle energies are still appropriate or should be lower, thus bringing more air weapons into the certification process.
As I said earlier, we have asked the committee to submit a report to the Government before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses. I understand that the committee has already given the subject of air weapons and age limits initial consideration at a recent meeting, on 28 November.
New clause 5 has been tabled in response to a new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston—super—Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) in the Committee of the whole House. It will exempt low-powered carbon dioxide weapons, both long and short-barrelled, and including carbon dioxide powered paint ball guns, from the general prohibition on handguns. Those firearms are no more dangerous than the low-powered airguns that are already exempted under the current law. The effect of the new clause will merely be to bring carbon dioxide weapons into line with air weapons. We have had it in mind to do that for some time, but we have not previously had a suitable legislative vehicle. Under the new clause, any further controls that we decided to bring in for air weapons would apply automatically to carbon dioxide weapons.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are minor amendments. Amendment No. 80 deals with the fact that the definition of "air weapon" in the Firearms Acts already means an air rifle, air pistol or airgun to which section 1 of the 1968 Act does not apply, so the words are not necessary in new section 5(1)(aba).
Amendment No. 81 clarifies that low-powered smooth-bore air or CO2 weapons should not classed as prohibited weapons. Paintball guns are smooth-bore and a court in Scotland ruled that, due to an unintended consequence of the drafting of section 5(1)(ac) of the Firearms Act 1968, they should be regarded as prohibited weapons. The amendment makes it clear that that should not be the case.

4 pm

Mr. Doug Henderson: New clause 2 deals with the age at which young people can own, use or purchase a firearm such as an airgun or shotgun. The current law is confused, and there was extensive discussion in Committee of that. I may be wrong but I got the feeling that, at the end of those discussions, the Committee was not absolutely clear about what the regulations were in every circumstance.
The easiest summary of the current position is that someone has to be 17 to purchase an airgun or shotgun, but on private land with supervision there may be circumstances in which it is lawful for someone under that age to use an airgun. Shotguns can be used by people


aged 15 without supervision; with supervision, and in some circumstances—it those circumstance about which there is dubiety—they can be used by people under 15. Generally speaking, 14 or 15 is far too young for someone, especially unsupervised, to be given the responsibility of handling a dangerous weapon such as an airgun or shotgun.
We need to review the age limits. It cannot be right that someone aged 14 or 15 can use a gun but cannot watch films at the cinema that depict the violent use of the same guns. It cannot be right that someone can use a gun but cannot drive a motor bike, even in regulated circumstances. Our previous legislation on such matters has got us into a muddle. It is not clear what the intentions of the House were when the regulations were drawn up. They have been up drawn up piecemeal over a long period.
In Committee, the thrust of our argument was that there should be a review. People should be 18 to be able to purchase a weapon as lethal as an airgun or shotgun; at 17, people could use the said weapons unsupervised; there should be no use under the age of 14 in any situation; and supervision would be required between 14 and 17. It was argued in Committee that some reflection might be helpful and that the Government should report to the House at an early stage on proposals to provide a regulatory environment and change the age limits. However, the Government argued, as the Minister said again today, that it would be more appropriate for the matter to be referred to the Firearms Consultative Committee. If the Government had been prepared to say that they would be guided by the committee's report, that would have been progress.
The problem is that, even if the Government had said that, that would not have convinced many members of the public. Few of them will be convinced that the Firearms Consultative Committee is a genuinely independent body, which will consider all aspects of the sale and use of guns. It seems to me that when two thirds of that committee has a clear interest in shooting, it cannot be described as an independent and objective body.
The Government may genuinely wish to review the age limits and regulatory regime and want to gain the political capital from making such a step forward, but surely they cannot gain that when they are dependent on the Firearms Consultative Committee for such advice. If the Government were genuinely committed to such a review, they would want a far more independent body, of the status of the inquiry chaired by Lord Cullen, to consider the use of shotguns and airguns.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman's attack on the Firearms Consultative Committee shows that he has little knowledge of why it was instituted and when. It was instituted as a result of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 for the specific purpose of making sure that those with some knowledge of shooting could persuade their fellow committee members of a line of thought, based on their knowledge of the sport.
If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be a committee of non-experts, frankly he might as well consult Ministers without any special knowledge or any other body without that knowledge. The whole purpose of the Firearms Consultative Committee is to offer specialist

knowledge to the Home Office. If by any mischance the hon. Gentleman ever becomes a Minister, he will be extremely glad of that specialist opinion.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman must consider the difference between a body that gives technical advice and that which assesses the use of weapons, the circumstances of their use, the dangers involved and protections that may be necessary not only for those users but for the rest of the public. Those are two different types of committee and the persons serving on them should have different backgrounds. If the hon. Gentleman were honest with himself, he would recognise that. I am sure that he would also recognise that the Firearms Consultative Committee does not meet the second criteria of being genuinely independent and having the ability to look at those different aspects of use.

Mr. Frank Cook: I seek to be helpful to the House. The difference of view that is apparent now appears to be based on the idea that the gun culture, which frightens all of us, is endemic. I want the House to consider a serious point. When I look at television programmes, videos or films, I see the likes of Starsky and Hutch or Cagney and Lacey dashing around in great cars and blasting people's heads off. That is what I look upon as the gun culture—the Sylvester Stallone syndrome, which believes that a firearm will resolve any argument and deliver a solution to any problem.
I want the House to consider that in gun clubs there exists the counter to that culture. Those clubs are subject to strict discipline and a strict regime. Anyone who suggests not conforming with that regime is promptly rebuked, chastised and taken to task. Gun clubs create and impose the kind of regimen that counters the undisciplined behaviour that we see on our screens. If we remember that, perhaps we will go some way to understanding the point that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has tried to make.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am sure that, in common with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), he would recognise that there is a distinction between a committee that gives technical advice and one that assesses the general environment in which weapons are used. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that, if we want to examine the use of shotguns or airguns, we need a more independent committee than one which, I accept, is well qualified to give technical advice.
I recognise my hon. Friend's point about the television culture and the violence that is endemic in many programmes and I share his abhorrence of that. I wish that fewer of our television programmes were dominated by that culture, because it has an impact on society.
My hon. Friend also said that he believed that there was a tough regime in pistol clubs and that there were sufficient regulations to protect the public. I hope that I have accurately paraphrased my hon. Friend's point. I disagree with his views on how we should deal with the problem of guns in our country. I think that we should prohibit the use of all pistols, whereas, as I understand his arguments, my hon. Friend would want us to allow certain pistols to be used in certain regulated circumstances.
Through new clauses 2 and 3, I ask the House to consider the need for a regulatory regime for airguns and shotguns. My hon. Friend already acknowledges that such


a regime is essential to cover the use of pistols and I presume that he would also be in favour of one to cover rifles. I hope, therefore, that he will support Labour Front Benchers' arguments in respect of new clauses 2 and 3.
It is not only Members of Parliament who are aware of the need for change, and the House should be aware of three short pieces of evidence before it reaches a decision on this matter. Lord Cullen himself, in paragraph 9.119 on page 132 of his report, raised the problem of the dangers of air weapons and
the question of whether they should be … unavailable until a later age than at present.
The second piece of evidence is the 1973 Green Paper on the control of firearms in Great Britain, which recommended a ban on under-18s buying any variety of firearm and an age limit of 16 for firing, under supervision, air weapons and shotguns. That important Green Paper is often forgotten, but it contained some telling observations.

Mr. A. J. Beith: For the record, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that, having drawn attention to the issue of airguns, Lord Cullen added:
I make no recommendation on these matters".
Perhaps he was wise not to do so, because where he has made recommendations, we seem to ignore them.

Mr. Henderson: I am not as grateful to the right hon. Gentleman as I usually am when he intervenes. All hon. Members are aware of Lord Cullen's comments on airguns and shotguns.
The police also have a firm view on this issue. In its submission to the Cullen inquiry, the English and Welsh police service joint commission—an ad hoc committee comprising the organisations that represent chief constables, superintendents and other members of the police force—argued that there should be a rationalised system of age limits: 18 for ownership and 16 for supervised use.
There is compelling evidence of confusion about the ages at which certain things are lawful or not lawful; and there is a considerable weight of intelligent public opinion that believes that there is a need both to sort out that confusion and to reflect on the need for any change. In some respects, the Minister acknowledged those points in her earlier remarks, before I had the chance to put the case in favour of new clauses 2 and 3.
There is a need for action. If the Government are to accept advice from the Firearms Consultative Committee before the Bill receives Royal Assent and if they feel that they can act upon that advice, new clause 2 would give them the opportunity to make changes. I hope that the Minister accepts my argument and that the Government will reconsider their opposition to new clause 2.
New clause 3 is closely linked. It addresses the question of which firearms should be subject to licence and which should not. Currently, airguns are not normally subject to licence and shotguns are subject to a separate licensing system. New clause 3 has been tabled in relation to airguns.
Very many airguns are in circulation. Estimates vary from 1 million to 2 million—there are no accurate figures. Airguns certainly cause problems. Figures for notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms are

reported to have been used, classified according to "how involved" and "principal weapon", show that in 1995. in England and Wales, there were 13,104 incidents, 7,549 of which involved airguns and caused damage to both persons and property.
There are very many of those weapons in circulation and there is considerable evidence of the damage that has been caused. Indeed, there have been many well-reported cases of people being killed, sometimes accidentally, by airguns, so there should be no doubt in the House that those are serious weapons.
4.15 pm
This morning, I received a communication from the English Association for Shooting and Conservation, which comments on new clauses 2 and 3. Its evidence shows how, dangerously, people are complacent about airguns. It says, and this includes a quotation from the Home Office publication "Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police":
Under current law youngsters are taught about shooting in a safe environment, overseen by an adult. This system encourages one-to-one training and safety awareness, ensuring that the young shooter develops responsibly. 'It is in the interests of safety that a young person should be properly taught at a relatively early age.' There is no evidence to suggest that the current law is inadequate.
I could not believe what was written in that evidence, because, as I am sure that hon. Members, whatever their views, are well aware, that is not the real world of my constituency and most constituencies, where there is considerable use of airguns to abuse both property and individuals.
A while ago, in my constituency, my car was attacked with an airgun by some kids who thought that that was good fun. If the window had been open and a passenger had caught the pellet in the eye, it would not have been a laughing matter.
There is a serious problem, and people who argue the case for shooting do themselves no justice by making observations such as those that I have quoted. Obviously, there is no proper training or supervision of many of the users of airguns in most of the circumstances in which they are used. If hon. Members have doubts, they should ask the cats in their constituency. They will give evidence that airguns are used for a purpose for which they were not intended.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety about the ease with which it is possible for young people to get their hands on airguns? On Saturday, in my local branch of W.H. Smith, I picked up an issue of Airgun World, which was one of six magazines advertising and selling airguns through the post without checking the purchaser's age.

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend demonstrates the need for an urgent review of that question with a view to introducing regulations that will cover the sale and use of airguns and the ages at which people may buy and use those weapons.
New clause 3 gives the Government the opportunity to introduce a system of licensing for airguns. I know that many problems are involved; I know that there are no easy answers when it comes to licensing. If, although I doubt it, the Firearms Consultative Committee were to give advice that persuaded the Government that it was


essential to take speedy action, our new clause would give the Government authority to take that action. If the Government recognise that there is a problem—that there is abuse of airguns and something needs to be done—the House should have the courage to take action before there is a tragic incident that brings the matter before the House. That will happen, as night follows day.
It is not good enough for the Government to recognise that a problem exists but not be prepared to take action to tackle it.

Mr. Frank Cook: Has my hon. Friend heard today's news reports of the action taken against Mr. Richard Law, whose weapons have been confiscated, whose ammunition has been taken away and whose certificates have been withdrawn? The police have the authority to do all that now when they see what they believe to be a dangerous situation involving offensive weapons. By all means let us tighten the law, but us not waste time foolishly on unnecessary arguments. The police already have the powers, when they choose to exercise them. Indeed, had they exercised them in the case of Mr. Thomas Hamilton, Dunblane might not have happened.

Mr. Henderson: I am aware of the incident in question, but I do not want to comment on it because I do not know the details. My hon. Friend, if he talks to the police in his area, will know that it is difficult for them to intervene in relation to the use of airguns—

Mr. Cook: But they do.

Mr. Henderson: I have to differ with my hon. Friend. I have overwhelming evidence from police officers in my area that major abuses occur all the time, and that the law does not give the police enough powers. They have to prove that someone is using a weapon in a part of the country for which he does not have permission. It is difficult for the police to know whether permission has been granted and whether the person is using the airgun in a public or private place. The police themselves do not think that they have sufficient powers under current laws to take quick enough action to prevent abuse. That is why they are calling for changed age limits and for a regulatory regime.

Mr. Cook: In May of this year, a constituent of mine was reported to the police as having an unreasonable attitude. He is 74 years old, a highly respected member of society and a trustee of a major pension fund. He did, however, possess two shotguns and an air rifle, with certificates for the shotguns. Once the police were informed of his attitude being unreasonable they visited his house, protected and armed for the purpose—they called it "tooling up". They withdrew the man's shotguns and airgun and his certificates and ammunition.
Following my appeal to the police, they said that they were quite satisfied that the complaint constituted sufficient evidence to withdraw the man's weapons: he still has not got them back. I therefore repeat my question: what more authority or power is necessary if the police can behave in that way already?

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for telling me about that particular case, but it does not alter my view.
The vast majority of hon. Members recognise that abuses take place all the time in their constituencies, and they involve the unlawful use of airguns. The police lack the power to intervene, for the reasons I have outlined already. Hence the need to cut down the general availability of those weapons, and to consider how the law can be tightened up and licensing can be introduced, where appropriate.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I cannot believe that Mr. Richard Law is being cited as a case of police activity by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). On a previous occasion when the police took action and secured a conviction against Mr. Law, his conviction was subsequently overturned in the Court of Appeal on what many people would consider a technicality.

Mr. Henderson: I am not sure that I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I recognise that in some circumstances the police have the authority to intervene and to take action. although they may encounter difficulties in the courts afterwards. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the police do not take action because they do not believe that they have the power to make the charge stick in court. That is the point that I am trying to establish. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that a major problem exists, and that that is why action is necessary.

Sir Hector Monro: As I am serving on a Standing Committee which sits in the afternoon, I could not take part in the earlier debates on the Floor of the House or in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. I have, however, been following matters carefully and reading the debates.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on the composition of the consultative committee. The committee must be part expert and part lay. It is a typical committee, with a good knowledge of firearms and the shooting sports—target shooting, international shooting and sporting shooting. The committee needs great skill to give the Minister the right advice.
I support Government new clause 5. The reference to compressed carbon dioxide is a significant move forward, and will be extremely helpful.
I support the Minister in opposing the new clauses tabled by the Opposition. I strongly believe that it is important to learn to use weapons at a reasonably early age. To start with an airgun, under proper supervision, is a useful way to begin. It is wrong of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North to criticise the British Association for Shooting and Conservation for running schemes to instruct youngsters in the use of weapons—airguns and shotguns. I remember learning to shoot when I was about eight or nine years old. It was valuable to become competent early in life, because with competence goes safety. If the instructor is skilled in safety, that is a great advantage to the youngster learning to shoot.
If the new clauses were passed, I am extremely concerned that they would enable the Government of the day to alter regulations relating to firearms and airguns without primary legislation. We would all deprecate that, as statutory instruments can sometimes slip through the


House without many Members knowing what is going on. It would be wrong for us to ease the way in which legislation could be changed. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's reason for wanting to change the age at which weapons may be used, and I accept that the present rules applying to the ages of 14 and 17 are a little complicated.
We should not make the use of air rifles more difficult. Previous debates have highlighted the importance of airguns to the disabled, as there is little recoil from such weapons. We know how well members of the British team did at the Paralympics this year, winning a gold and a silver medal. We would not want anything to prevent that sport from continuing.
The hon. Gentleman is too critical of the existing legislation. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, the legislation is in place and gives the police immense powers, which one often wishes they would exercise more vigorously in cases where teenagers and others are seen to use air rifles in dangerous circumstances. I would support any move by the police to take action when they considered that necessary. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Association of Chief Police Officers saw no reason to introduce further legislation on air rifles.
I support my hon. Friend in the aim of her new clause, and in opposing the further restrictions proposed by the Opposition.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Lord Cullen referred to airguns—so it is right that we should discuss them—but he made no recommendations about them. Airguns present some problems, particularly in urban areas, even though they are less likely to be involved in crimes or accidents than firearms. That is especially true on housing schemes in urban areas, where it is pretty difficult to satisfy the rules applying to airguns.
An airgun should not be used within 50 ft of a public road, a public footpath or in a public place. It is pretty unlikely that that condition will be satisfied in many inner-city areas. Therefore, the presence of large numbers of airguns on estates is undoubtedly a source of much anxiety. No one should deny that a problem exists, but it is a finely balanced argument whether we should proceed at this stage to embrace airguns in the licensing system on the back of this very important legislation.
We must consider also whether we should achieve that goal via the negative resolution procedure—the least satisfactory parliamentary process—which does not guarantee that the matter will be brought to the House or that any vote taken in Committee will lead to a vote on the Floor of the House. It is a very unsatisfactory parliamentary procedure, and should not be used to impose otherwise reasonable restrictions on individual rights.
I have two further anxieties about proceeding in this manner at this stage—I do not regard them as conclusive, but I ask hon. Members to consider them. First, there is a danger that we might overload the licensing system while we are adding new procedures to it. It is vital that the system be vigorous and effective in respect of firearms and shotguns. It would be unfortunate if efforts were diverted to the major task of licensing many air rifle users

at the very time when we are seeking to make the system in respect of firearms and shotguns totally effective by introducing new procedures through this legislation.
Secondly, there is at least some danger that young people in particular will have no incentive to pursue their shooting hobby using airguns instead of moving on to more powerful weapons—there is a huge difference between the relative power of an airgun and a firearm. Once it is necessary to have licences for both, a young person who wishes to learn to shoot might think, "Well, I might as well go for a firearm"—even if his interest might have been satisfied by airguns.
I return to Lord Cullen, who said:
I make no recommendation on these matters but would draw them to the attention of the Home Office and The Scottish Office".
Therefore, it seems correct that there should be widespread consultation as to whether we should introduce new measures to deal with air weapons, both in the Firearms Consultative Committee—which has an important and useful job to do; I dissent from the line adopted by the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who appeared to disparage that committee—and more widely, in order to embrace the views of those in urban communities who are concerned about the misuse of air rifles and the fact that they are widely held by young people.
By supporting the new clause, Hon. Members may wish to give a signal to the Government to move on the matter. However, I think that there is a danger that we may divert attention from the primary purpose of the legislation.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I support new clause 3, and I understand the Minister's argument. She again advanced the views of the famous Firearms Consultative Committee, which I think highlight its inadequacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that it was all very well having a technical committee to provide technical advice, but a committee that is dominated by the shooting lobby is not then in a position to give advice on how we should organise that activity in society. That is what the consultative committee is doing in its recommendations.
The Minister said that we could not, and should not, license airguns, because it would interfere with the legitimate rights of individuals to own airguns. That is not a matter for the consultative committee: it is for Parliament to decide what constitutes individuals' legitimate rights. It is not a technical matter, but a civil liberties issue of which Parliament is the guardian—not some Firearms Consultative Committee that is dominated by the shooting lobby.
The Minister also said that licensing would not reduce the misuse of airguns. Where is the evidence for that assertion? That is an opinion, not technical advice. It is difficult for sustain that argument. She is trying to limit the misuse of guns. We are trying to limit the use of guns. Our new clause tries to limit ownership and the use of air rifles by a similar mechanism.
I have heard the consultative committee, the Minister and others argue that air weapons are essential for proper training in shotguns. There are between l million and 2 million airguns in this country, but how many are used


as a stepping stone to training in shotguns? I do not believe that we have the figure, but I bet that it is very few indeed.
The majority of airguns are used to create nuisance, to threaten and to create public disorder in our society. They are not used as the stepping stone to becoming an Olympic gold medallist, and we should not perpetuate that idea any further. Even if we license airguns, it is still possible to get one and to train with it before going on to something else. Licensing would not stop that.
The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned paraplegics, and said that licensing airguns would limit their chance to take part in the Paralympics. It would not. We are not trying to stop their use for sport, for training and so on, but we are concerned about reducing the anti-social effect of airguns, the vast majority of which are used to intimidate, frighten, upset and abuse many people. They are dangerous weapons. Let me reiterate just how dangerous they are.
In this country, I have not dealt with any bullet wounds in the head—although I did when I worked in the United States—but I have looked after several patients with airgun pellets inside the head. I have seen two deaths and one patient was severely disabled—mostly as a result of pellets entering the orbit, where the bone is very thin—and required major surgery, at great risk. These were caused by .22 airguns. These are dangerous weapons on our streets. They are completely unlicensed. They are a social hazard. They are a threat to life and limb. I see no reason from the Minister why we should not go ahead and license them, so I hope that we will gain support for our new clause.

Mr. Salmond: I support new clauses 2 and 3.
On new clause 3, I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). The argument was that licensing would not be necessary if the police did their job properly. I have been suspicious of that argument throughout these debates, and I am suspicious of it now. Of course it is possible, particularly in retrospect, to look back and say that the police should have operated differently in some cases, but it is extremely difficult—it requires more than hunches or beliefs—to take action against an individual. The case of Mr. Richard Law, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, is a case in point.
Anyone who has met Mr. Law probably has a hunch and belief that he should not be in possession of a firearms certificate. It is one thing to have a hunch and a belief; it is quite another to make it stick in terms of existing legislation. It would be the same with air rifles and what the hon. Gentleman wants to do—

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I give way.

Mr. Cook: I was not seeking to intervene, but the opportunity is too good to miss.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Was the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) seeking to intervene?

Mr. Cook: I was trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak later in the debate, if I may.

Mr. Salmond: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He was looking at me expectantly, and, polite and civil as ever, I decided to give way to him.
I have nothing against Mr. Richard Law, although he said that he would stand for election in Banff and Buchan against me, but it looks as though he will be otherwise engaged. None the less, his is a case in point. Even where there seemed to be a clear indication, action taken against him was overturned by the courts, because more than a hunch or a belief is necessary. There has to be legislation. That is why the new clause on air rifles is important, valuable and worth supporting.
I was on a radio phone-in programme with a representative of the shooting lobby—not Mr. Richard Law, but perhaps one of the more responsible members of that lobby. A lady phoned the programme and said that she thought it important that her 12-year-old son should be educated in the use of a shotgun. The shooting lobby gentleman on the programme disagreed, and said he thought that the appropriate age was 13. It is argued that even relatively young children should be educated in the use of weapons, but most of us would say that the age at which that is done should be substantially more than 12 or 13 years.
The radio debate went on for some time; it showed that, even among people who were knowledgeable on the subject and were arguing the shooting point of view, there was confusion about the appropriate age. One of the benefits of the new clause is that it would put the confusion in the Government's court for analysis, so that they could produce regulations in which we could all have confidence about the age of those who could use such weapons.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Perhaps I could follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on the subject of age. I learned to shoot before age limits were introduced, and I recall with great pleasure at the age of nine or 10 walking around my father's farm with him behind me training me in all the good habits of shooting safety. I had exciting times creeping around corners to shoot rabbits, and I hope that subsequently 1 have been a safe shot.
It is not just the teaching of shotgun shooting or some other forms of shooting that is good. A national coach who was in my surgery a fortnight ago told me that he was training a boy of 12 in pistol-shooting discipline. He told me that the boy was so good that he could almost join the national squad now, and said, "By the time he is 14 he will be an international. I can keep him at that level only if I can keep shooting with him and training him."
It is a question of supervision and common sense. The law is not generous, but it has been generally accepted that it is safe. There are no cases of young people being involved in accidents, or, happily, being irresponsible. There is no reason for changing the present rules, which are seen by many people as draconian and certainly much more severe than they were when I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) were young students in the art of shooting and handling a gun.
Airguns are altogether different. I regret that the Opposition have seen fit to introduce them to the controversy at this time. The airgun is a different instrument from a gun that uses an explosive charge. Air pistols are limited to a maximum muzzle energy of 6 ft/lb and the energy of air rifles is limited to 12 ft/lb. A typical sporting rifle bullet produces a muzzle energy of 1,000 to 3,000 ft/lb.
The speech by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) revealed a problem. There are accidents with airguns—I had a tragic constituency case—but of course there are accidents with knives, bicycles, motor cars and everything else. We cannot live in a 100 per cent. safe world. I have no reason to believe that, if we license or control the 3 million airguns that are in circulation, there will be fewer accidents.
Shooting is an olympic sport at which Britain excels. Airguns are hardly ever used in violent crime, and 75 per cent. of crimes involving—

Mr. Galbraith: In the cases that I dealt with, the injuries were intentional: they were not accidents.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: In that case, I hope that those who were involved were charged with attempted murder. We cannot make assertions based on such cases, because, if the person was intent on assault, he could have carried it out with something other than an airgun. Simply removing airguns will not solve the problem. As an experienced surgeon, the hon. Gentleman must have dealt with millions of different cases. But he made the case that some—very few—are airgun accidents.
Hospital statistics show that airguns are annually reported to be involved in an estimated 2,200 accidents, and I readily acknowledge that that is far too many. To put that figure into perspective, however, the same table shows that 7,750 accidents involve golf equipment, and 13,200 involve hockey sticks. So let us try to keep a sense of proportion in this matter.
Current firearms Acts are very strict on airguns. Loaded airguns may not be carried in a public place at any time. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) mentioned examples of problems associated with urban areas, such as cats. The law is being broken in those examples. Airguns may not be fired within 50 ft of a public road or footpath, and they may not be sold or hired to anyone under 17. Moreover, no one under the age of 14 may own an airgun, and they may use an airgun only under the strict supervision of an adult aged 21 or over.
4.45 pm
We make laws in the House, with the very best of intentions, but they are not always observed. It is no good saying that simply changing the law will solve the problem, because, in this case, I am absolutely sure it will not.
The airgun community is beginning to regulate itself. The Airgun Shooters Association, which was formed about three years ago, now has a membership of more than 5,000, and it is growing. It runs proficiency courses, which cover legal and safety issues, and it is working with other organisations to develop airgun safety training courses.
If we were to go down the road of licensing, there would be a great movement away from legitimate airgun use, and it would have little or no effect on crime. It would drive many airguns underground, and I am sure that many of them would end up in the hands of unsupervised young people. It would also produce an intolerable burden on the police and the courts, diverting resources from the real problem of far more dangerous and illegal firearms.
The change of the age limit from 17 to 18 seems irrelevant. Let us face the fact that, at 17, one can be in charge of a motor vehicle, which is potentially a far more lethal weapon than an airgun.
I hope that the House will reject these new clauses and amendments. However, I should like to tell the Minister how much we welcome the amendment on carbon dioxide. A situation in which the gas used to power a gun may legally be air but not carbon dioxide is ridiculous. It is common sense to change that, and the opportunity has been taken, for which I am very grateful.

Mr. Frank Cook: I should like quickly to make several points. The first relates to my presence in, or absence from, the Chamber during this debate. I must chair a parliamentary group on medical aid at 5 o'clock. Although I shall attempt to assist the House later in today's proceedings, I shall, sadly, have to be absent while the group meets.
The surgical experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is awesome, and unquestionably we must take it into account. His contributions to that field are internationally renowned.
He made the point that licensing airguns will not eliminate abuse of them, and he is absolutely right. However, I ask hon. Members to turn that argument on its head, and ask themselves whether higher calibre firearms will no longer be abused once they are no longer licensed. The issues of licensing weapons and legally using them are thus divorced. It much more a matter of how well weapon licensing and use are supervised by the authorities that are empowered to do so—the police.
Hon. Members have said much about the Firearms Consultative Committee in supporting these new clauses and amendments. For some reason, people believe that there is some bias in the committee. I cannot understand why anyone should adopt such a view. I am happy that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden smiles at that, but if he met the members of the committee, he would share their exasperation and frustration, because so little attention is paid to their recommendations. Far from being proponents of a wild gun culture, they are pleading for safety, safety and safety again, and for the implementation of recommended regulations. The Government have consistently ignored them.
I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on police powers. There are variations from one region to another in the style of policing, operational feasibility, success and achievement. When I raised the case of Mr. Richard Law, I was not in any way defending him. I do not know what he has done or has not done. He might be a saint, or he might be a sinner—I have no idea. My point is that the police had the powers to act.
I remind the House, for probably the fifth time, that constituents have often complained to me about the rigour with which Cleveland constabulary applies its powers. My reaction has always been, "Thank God for that. I am proud of Cleveland constabulary. If you care about your sporting activities and want to continue to participate in this leisure pursuit, you should be pleased, and accept the fact that the police are intent on keeping it safe." Our


paramount consideration should not be cost or convenience, but the safety of those taking part in the sport, and of other members of society.
Those are important points. I wish that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench had spent more time listening to what I have said than discussing something else.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill

New clause 3

EXTENSION OF POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE FOR AIR WEAPONS

'. Section l(3)(b) of the 1968 Act (which exempts air weapons from the requirements of that section unless declared specially dangerous) shall be amended by substituting for the words "declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act to be specially dangerous" the words "specified by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 270.

Division No. 24]
[4.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbyn, Jeremy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Afton, David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Ashdown, Paddy
Cunningham, Dr John


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beggs, Roy
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Benn, Tony
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Don


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blunkett, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Boateng, Paul
Eastham, Ken


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Faulds, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Byers, Stephen
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, D N
Garrett, John


Canavan, Dennis
Gerrard, Neil


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hain, Peter


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hall, Mike


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Connarty, Michael
Harman, Ms Harriet




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)



Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ashby, David
Bates, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Batiste, Spencer


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bendall, Vivian

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4

PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF FIREARMS RENDERED UNLAWFUL

'(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who incur any loss as a result of this Act and to whom subsection (2) below applies.

(2) This section applies to persons who on 15th October 1996 were—

(a) operating a target shooting club or association and were not thereby carrying on a trade with a view to profit; or
(b) were registered firearms dealers or were engaged in the business of the manufacture or repair of firearms or in the provision of ranges.

(3) Persons operating a target shooting club or association under subsection (2) above shall not receive payment unless—

(a) the club or association was for the use of firearms which have or will become unlawful by virtue of section 1 above; and


(b) the club or association is not able to meet the criteria set out in section 16 for the grant of a licence under section 15; and
(c) such persons have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with the club or association.

(4) Persons to whom subsection (2)(b) above applies shall receive payment equal to the value of the loss of business and such loss shall be defined as the difference between the value of the business on 15th October 1996 and the value of the business following the commencement of this Act.'.—(Sir Jerry Wiggin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 73.
Amendment No. 1, in clause 11, page 5, line 31, leave out from 'persons' to end of line 41 and insert—
'who—

(a) surrender or forfeit property under this Act; or
(b) incur any other loss as a result of this Act; and

such loss shall be calculated by reference to the value of assets on 15th October 1996.'.
Amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 31, after 'surrender', insert 'small'.
Amendment No. 20, in page 5, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—
'(2) In this section "small firearm" means any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall (disregarding any detachable, folding, retractable or other movable butt-stock), including any small-calibre pistol.'.
Amendment No. 67, in page 5, line 41, at end insert
'or has been restricted by virtue of section I9A of the 1968 Act, as inserted by section 6 above.'.
Government amendment No. 74, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with any scheme which may be made by him, make payments in respect of ancillary equipment of any description specified in the scheme.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above "ancillary equipment" means equipment, other than prohibited ammunition, which—

(a) is designed or adapted for use in connection with firearms prohibited by virtue of section 1(2) above; and
(b) has no practicable use in connection with any firearm which is not a prohibited weapon.

(6) A scheme under subsection (4) above shall provide only for the making of payments to persons making claims for such payments in respect of ancillary equipment—

(a) which they had in their possession on 16th October 1996; or
(b) which they had in their possession after that date, having purchased it by virtue of a contract entered into before that date.

(7) No payment shall be made under a scheme under subsection (4) above in relation to any ammunition unless its possession or, as the case may be, purchase by any person claiming a payment in respect of it was, at all material times, lawful by virtue of a firearm certificate held by him or by virtue of his being a registered firearms dealer.

(8) A scheme under subsection (4) above may require, as a condition of eligibility for receipt of payments under the scheme in respect of any equipment—

(a) the surrender (whether to the police or any other person) of that equipment in accordance with the scheme within a period specified by the scheme; or
(b) the disposal of that equipment by way of sale within a period so specified; or
(c) either such surrender or such disposal of that equipment within a period so specified.

(9) A scheme under this section may—

(a) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims;
(b) make different provision for different descriptions of equipment or for different descriptions of claimant.'.

Amendment (a) to amendment No. 74, at end add—
'(10) Any scheme made under this section shall provide for the appointment of an independent financial arbiter with powers to hear and determine appeals against valuations of guns and ancillary equipment under the Act.'.
Amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to members of unincorporated associations, associations incorporated by charter, companies limited by guarantee or companies with unlimited liability which—

(a) on 16th October 1996 were operating a target shooting club or association for the use of firearms which have or will become unlawful by virtue of section 1 above; and
(b) are not able to meet the criteria set out in section 16 for the grant of a licence under section 15; and
(c) thereby suffer loss.'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were operating a target shooting club or association and were not thereby carrying on a trade with a view to profit, provided that—M

(a) the club or association was for the use of firearms which have or will become unlawful by virtue of section 1 above; and
(b) the club or association is not able to meet the criteria set out in section 16 for the grant of a licence under section 15; and
(c) such persons have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with the club or association.'.

Amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who are registered firearms dealers or who are engaged in the business of the manufacture or repair of firearms or in the provision of ranges and who suffer loss of business caused by the prohibition of firearms under section 1 above, and such loss shall be defined as the difference between the value of the business on October 15th 1996 and the value of the business following the commencement of this Act.'.
Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who are registered firearms dealers or who are engaged in the business of the manufacture or repair of firearms or in the provision of ranges and who suffer loss of business caused by the prohibition of firearms under section 1 above, and such loss shall be defined as the difference between the value of the business on 12th March 1996 and the value of the business following the commencement of this Act.'.
Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—


'(2) No scheme shall be made by the Secretary of State under this section before he has laid before Parliament a report on the general principles which he proposes should underlie the scheme and the Commons House of Parliament has come to a resolution in respect of that report.'.
Amendment No. 66, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(3) Any scheme made under subsection (1) shall provide for the appointment of an independent financial arbiter with powers to hear and determine appeals against valuations of guns and ancillary equipment under the Act.'.
Amendment No. 68, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(2) The Scheme may include provision to make payments in respect of any equipment or facilities required solely in connection with the use, maintenance, storage or repair of such weapons or the making and supply of ammunition for such weapons.'.
Government amendments Nos. 75 to 78.
Government amendment No. 79, in schedule 1, page 21, line 43, at end insert—
'Voluntary surrender of pistols
8A.—(1) A person to whom this Schedule applies may before the appointed day, surrender a small-calibre pistol belonging to him at any designated police station instead of keeping it at licensed premises of a licensed pistol club or delivering it into police custody.
(2) Where a small-calibre pistol has been delivered into police custody, the person who delivered it may (if it still belongs to him) surrender the pistol by giving notice that he is surrendering it to the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station to which he delivered it is situated.
8B. The Secretary of State may make such payments, to such persons, as he may consider appropriate in respect of small—calibre pistols which are surrendered, or are treated as having been surrendered, by virtue of paragraph 8 or 8A above.'.
Amendment (a) amendment No. 79, at end add—
'(2) Any arrangements made under section 10 shall provide for the appointment of an independent financial arbiter with powers to hear and determine appeals against valuations of guns and ancillary equipment under this Act.'

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I apologise to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who asked that his name be attached to new clause 4. I failed to attach it, but he has been very supportive of the principle and I apologise to him.
The Bill will result in thousands of law-abiding people being deprived of their sport. That is both wrong and unfortunate, but, much more important, it will deprive many dealers, manufacturers, agents, transport companies, suppliers and others who make their livelihoods from the sport of shooting of those livelihoods and their jobs. There are ordinary club members who have put their names on long-term mortgages and leases for clubs and ranges that will be forced to close. In short, the Bill will have a devastating effect on a significant minority of people.
Natural justice demands that those people are entitled to receive proper compensation for assets that will be confiscated through no fault of their own. New clause 4 would provide that anyone who loses money as a result of the legislation should be properly compensated. When a legal and, in this case, licensed occupation is legal one day and is made illegal on the next, through no fault of the individuals concerned, it is not the business of the House to deprive people not only of their fun but of large sums of money. I am deeply ashamed of my Government for proposing that.
So far, much of the debate on compensation has rested on precedent, and the Government argue that many others have lost investments in their business because they have had to comply with public safety legislation and that they have not been compensated. But surely the circumstances of the Bill are different. Many of the examples that have been quoted concerned businesses that have been able to continue with their trade at normal levels after meeting the new obligations. At worst, they have incurred additional overheads, but that is not the issue here.
The principle applies to those examples quoted by the Minister in Committee, including owners whose cars could no longer be licensed under new Ministry of Transport rules in the 1960s, road haulage businesses whose lorry fleets were affected by vehicle testing requirements and businesses that could not afford to implement health and safety regulations, noise level requirements for equipment or safety guards for machinery.
Even more irrelevant were the cited changes in the law on food additives. Bearing in mind the fact that all those rules and changes applied to a whole industry, competition demanded that everybody had to upgrade. In this case, there is no option to continue the business in a modified form. The business comes to an end the day the Act becomes law.
The Government cited new Environment Agency regulations that require narrow boats and other boats used on inland waterways to ensure the safety of fuel and electrical fittings. Until recently, I was an adviser to the British Marine Industries Federation and owned a boat, so I know a little about that matter.
The new rules were the equivalent of an MOT test, and boat owners with any common sense would have maintained their boats to those standards anyway. The rules simply insisted on what was already good practice. It may have cost some owners some money, but that is not the same as saying, "Thou shalt not ever go in thy boat again, as from tomorrow."
I know that the Government are nervous about establishing a principle that would require compensation to be paid to people affected by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy rules. Here I declare an interest, because I am an adviser to British Sugar, which manages a company in the animal food business that certainly has it in mind to make a big claim against the Government. The food in its hoppers was legal on Monday but illegal on Tuesday, and the cost of disposing of it rather than selling it was substantial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) introduced a debate in the House the other day about a firm in his constituency that was told that what was a perfectly legal activity one day was illegal the next.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with what he understands to be the position under the European convention on human rights? It seems that we have an obligation to conform to that convention, which requires compensation in such circumstances. As the Labour party favours our being further bound by the convention, presumably it will wish to support any claim for compensation in line with the convention.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I certainly look forward, as I am sure do all my hon. Friends, to hearing the Labour party's


position on compensation. When the coal mines were nationalised, the Labour Government paid compensation to the coal owners. That rubbed against the grain, and the money was not adequate, but it was paid. I shall come to the European convention in a moment.
The Government have been inconsistent over BSE. They have refused help for the small business in Gosport, but they have offered the rendering industry £118 million. They have offered the farming industry even more. I do not complain about that; I simply point out that there is a good precedent for paying compensation, expensive though that may be. If it proves too expensive, the Government should have considered that problem before introducing the Bill.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much in common between the cattle head de-boning industry, which tends to consist of small businesses with individual proprietors who borrow against their houses to pay for their equipment, and small gun dealers, many of whom have borrowed against their houses to fund their businesses? If precedent dictates that the Government are driving such people out of business through no fault of their own, is not precedent wrong, and should we not change the rules?

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; it is a matter of morality. That was why I referred to the case that he raised. I think that we both stand by the same feelings on the morality of what should happen to citizens' interests. The House of Commons is here to protect those interests, and I am unhappy about the way in which compensation is handled in connection with the Bill.
In Committee, the Government cited other examples, such as the manufacturers of asbestos, flammable furniture foam and certain drugs, whose businesses have been affected by public safety legislation. Those categories offer a false comparison. They fall under existing product liability law, which covers products that cease to be safe for the purpose for which they were intended.
5.15 pm
No one suggests that the guns that are to be made unlawful are not suitable for the purpose for which they were intended. Indeed, the reverse is strongly argued by those who oppose our point of view. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that some of the worst hit people will be individuals such as those who have given personal guarantees for mortgages or leases on their clubs.
To return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, in the case of Lithgow v. United Kingdom, in 1986, the European Court of Human Rights stated:
The taking of property in the public interest without any compensation is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances. A fair balance has to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. A disproportionate burden should not be placed on individual owners.
I am not proud of the fact that we are thinking of having to take faulty legislation passed by the House to the European Court of Human Rights, when we should not be

passing it in the first place. Of course, when the Bill becomes law, there will be many lawyers beavering away to see whether there is any further outlet. But let us be realistic: such actions take several years, and the suffering in the interim will be great, even if there is success at the end of the day.
A relevant precedent is being set at this very moment in Australia. The Australian Government have banned three categories of weapon following the tragic incident in Port Arthur this year. However, they have also willingly accepted the principle of fair and proper compensation for dealers, individuals and collectors.
In Australia, compensation is to be based on the value of the assets one month before the Port Arthur incident. The Government there recognise that compensation must take into account the fact that a depression in the value of such assets occurred immediately after the incident.
The scheme works as follows. Individuals and collectors are given compensation as soon as they hand in their weapons. The firearm is identified by type, make and model number, and a basic assessment of its condition is made. Owners also have the opportunity to secure an independent valuation of their guns, or to sell them overseas. Compensation will also be paid for any accessory specific to a prohibited firearm.
Dealers are offered compensation for stock, unusable ammunition, spares, maintenance equipment and manuals relating to prohibited firearms—not at purchase price but at sale price. They are also offered compensation for loss of business, which is interpreted as the difference between the value of the business before and after the incident and the new legislation. The valuation will be carried out by professional accountants, and based on audited financial statements for the previous three years.
The Australian Government offer fair and proper compensation to their citizens, in accordance with natural justice. The British Government must do the same.
The people about whom we are especially concerned are firearms dealers. Compensation is offered for stock, but not for loss of business. Many dealers will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. We do not know exactly how many, but 163 dealers wrote to the British Shooting Sports Council to say that they expected to lose 155 jobs when the Bill went through. For 3,000 registered dealers, that would mean 3,000 jobs.
The closure and loss of income for clubs and ranges will hit hard. Clubs and ranges often have leases and mortgages, which are met by ordinary members of the club. The Bill presents us with the real prospect that such people will have their clubs closed. A quick survey of 139 clubs, carried out by the British Shooting Sports Council, shows that 71 per cent. will not reach the Government's requirements for security, and that individuals will remain personally liable for long leases and mortgages, which will leave many people bankrupt. Returns from 126 clubs show that they expect to suffer financial losses as a result of the changes, to a total of £31.24 million. If we apply that to the 2,067 clubs that we know about, the total loss will be more than £64 million.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has listened to some of our requests. The Treasury hand could be seen in the original tight money resolution, which would have prevented us from even debating these points. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for producing a new money resolution that allowed the


debate to be widened. I am also grateful to him for taking into account the ancillary equipment used by large-calibre revolver firers to make shots, and the other specialist equipment that he has agreed to compensate for. He has just announced that he will also take into account .22 calibre weapons where the individual concerned no longer wants a weapon because there is no club within range, and has decided to give up his hobby. Those are small crumbs for which we thank the Home Office but, frankly, they do not go far enough.
I appeal not just to those interested in shooting but to the whole House on the basis of fairness. We have seen what the Australian Government think of the matter. I could read out various examples, but they would not necessarily strengthen my case, as hon. Members will have read about them in the press. Many people will suffer greatly and will face severe financial loss. I find that unacceptable, and un-Conservative. I shall be interested to learn what the Opposition think about it. I am certainly not prepared to support the Government, and I shall naturally vote for my new clause. I ask as many of my colleagues as possible to support me in the Lobby.

Sir David Steel: I wish to give broad support to the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), and I should like to underline a couple of his points.
It is true that there are differing views in all parties in the House on the merits of the ban itself. Speaking for my party, I can say that there is no difference of view on the essential point that the hon. Gentleman made—that, whatever our views on the ban, we are under an obligation to make sure that those who, through no fault of their own, suffer loss as a result of this legislation are adequately compensated. That is surely a view around on we can unite.
Like the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, I recognise—it would be churlish not to do so—that, by virtually rewriting the section on compensation, Home Office Ministers have gone some way to try to meet the points raised in Committee. But it is my contention that they have not yet got it right, and we are right to use Report and the later stages of the Bill in another place to get it right.
I underline the basic point made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. I do not believe that there is a precedent for confiscating people's property in the way that the Bill proposes, and comparisons with MOT tests are not valid at all. I speak as someone who began my driving life owning a motor car that braked on only one wheel. In the interests of public safety, the Government of the day thought it right that the cars should be tested. The car was irreparable and—if I had still had it at the time—I would have lost my property. However, that was a wasting asset, and there is no comparison between that—in any case, a long period for confiscation was given—and what we now propose.
We are confiscating not only the property of a small minority of people—I accept that it is a small minority—but their livelihood. We should not do that with gay abandon. As far as I know, only one person in my constituency will be affected by the legislation, but a minority of one is what we are here to stand up for. I referred to the gentleman in a previous debate—I have met him, of course—but he wrote to me only yesterday to say:

I am a Registered Firearms Dealer who until recently, manufactured top quality competition handguns. Building, repairing and retail sale of pistols and revolvers was 90 per cent. of my business.
As a result of the impending legislation, I have effectively lost my livelihood".
The House should note his next point:
because I am self-employed I am not entitled to any unemployment benefit, a ludicrous situation given the fact that the Government have put me out of work.
That is a very fair point, and it must be answered. I do not think that we can pass legislation that takes away the livelihoods of even a small number of people without making sure that we have dealt with the subject adequately.
The central weakness of the Government's case is that they have never made out to anyone's satisfaction—certainly not to mine—the case against the dismantling of weapons, as recommended by Lord Cullen; but they have decided on a policy that the House has approved, and that is the situation with which we now deal. Given that, and given that we are talking about confiscation, we must look carefully at the new clauses and amendments.
I refer briefly to the new clauses and amendments in my name, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who served on the Standing Committee and tabled an amendment on compensation. Our amendments deal with, among other things, whether there should be an independent arbiter to whom appeals can be made where there is a dispute about compensation—whatever the scope of the scheme proposed by the Home Secretary.
That seems to fall within what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly described as natural justice. When we are dealing with such a draconian piece of legislation, the insertion of some kind of arbitration and valuation is essential. That is the burden of the measures tabled in my name, and I hope that they are pursued during this debate.

Sir Cranley Onslow: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), and I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). I read the Committee's proceedings on clause 11 with some astonishment, and I was amazed by the specious argument of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in resisting the amendment moved there. Having read Hansard, it strikes me—this is to my hon. Friend's credit—that she was not happy to read the brief that was put in front of her.
At any rate, the precedents described in Committee do not apply to the situation we are discussing. The question of setting standards in public safety for cars, boats and food additives is not on all fours with what we have now, which is confiscation. The nearest parallel is compulsory purchase, a well-recognised principle for which people are fully compensated and where the established precedents of the law are firm—thank goodness for that. If someone's property has been taken away or someone's livelihood has been removed, and that person has been injuriously affected, the principles of compensation for compulsory purchase apply 100 per cent., and that is the situation that we have here.
I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will touch on the question raised quite rightly by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare of the Australian precedent, which is an honourable one. It meets what the House would regard as the proper demands and requests of people whose livelihoods and property will be taken away at one stroke by the Government. There can be no alternative. The Australians are right—let us follow them.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) for pointing out that my name should have been among those supporting the new clause, and the same is true of amendment No. 58. It is nice to refer to the hon. Gentleman in relation to not putting someone's name on an amendment, but in this case I regret it because I support the new clause and amendment. No. 58.
It is only right and fair to apply reasonable—indeed full—compensation to people who will be hit by the measure. The Government look rather evasive on the vital issue of compensation, which is a central right. It looks as though the Government have decided to ignore the rational approach, which is to follow Lord Cullen's recommendation on dismantling. They cannot do that, because it is not a big enough gesture to pacify public opinion. The Government have to make a gesture, but they will not give us the cost of it. Therefore, they are effectively not coming clean on the scale of and the right to compensation.
There is a further argument regarding the right to compensation for people with .22 weapons, which will remain legal. They, too, will be severely affected. The effect on pistol shooting, whether with weapons that are explicitly banned or not, will be extremely damaging.
The Bill is a mess, and it will create an even bigger mess unless we provide for compensation for those with .22 weapons, as amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would do. The Government's gesture of banning weapons more powerful than .22 will have a disastrous effect on all shooters. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said, many .22 shooters have expensive weapons and many gun clubs, including the one in Grimsby, have borrowed from banks and run up overdrafts to provide good facilities and adequate security.
5.30 pm
The number of people practising with .22 weapons will fall because of the odium that has fallen unfairly on all shooting, and extra security to store whole weapons—not dismantled weapons, which would be much cheaper, because there is no point in ram-raiding a gun club to get part of a gun, but which the Government have not had the sense to provide for—will cost a great deal, and clubs, many of which are already in debt, will go bust.
Once the clubs have gone bust, people with .22 weapons will have nowhere to store them and will be unable to practise the sport. They will be left with unusable weapons that will be a burden on them as well as on the clubs, and they have a right, in that entirely foreseeable and almost inevitable situation, to compensation. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would simply bring those people into the rubric and allow people who

want to surrender .22 weapons to take them along to the police station and get compensation, to avoid the long, whimpering, slow death that will happen to the sport in any case.
The Government's approach is interesting. The Secretary of State for Scotland is going around telling Scottish Members that we do not need to ban smaller handguns because the sport will wither on the vine and die; that is what he says north of the border, to compensate for not having the total ban that many people there want. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary tells us that there will be a great deal of ingenuity and that new clubs will come along with new technology and the sport will flourish. That is total nonsense.
The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot both be right. Personally, I believe that the latter is right. Let us then follow the logic of what he says and provide compensation for those people who will be hit. That would be right, fair and decent.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I think that I can anticipate what the hon. Gentleman wants to say, so I shall not give way to him.
I note that the Government have tabled an amendment that points in the right direction; it is not as good as my amendments, but they do not have the advantage of my legal expertise and advice. However, they must do something.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for his support. I should also say how pleased I am that those of us who tabled the new clause and the amendments have the support of the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), who at least have personal experience of shooting and know what they are talking about. They also have an interest, as we all do, in the principles of fairness and justice, which is what the new clause and the amendments are all about.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on the able and robust way in which he moved new clause 4. I want to speak to the new clause and to amendments Nos. 1 to 5. Incidentally, I also support what the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and his colleagues propose in amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 74. If we win the case for fair compensation, it will make sense to have independent arbitration available in case there should be any dispute.
In debates such as this, it is as well to call in at one's Whips Office to pick up the brief that gives the party line. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Everybody does it, and I found it interesting on this occasion. I thumbed through the pages of the document, and found that all that we are offered on compensation is a reiteration of the original clause 11. There are no arguments against fair and proper compensation. The Conservative research department seems tacitly to accept that those of us who support the new clause have won the argument. Was that not what the Second Reading debate was all about? We won the argument but, alas, we lost the vote. Unfortunately, that is often the case.
New clause 4 and the amendments refer to fair and proper compensation for the 57,000 people who currently lawfully hold handguns of which the Bill, if enacted in its


present form, will deprive them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said, dealers, manufacturers and clubs are also affected, and it is only right that there should be proper arrangements for fair compensation. The arguments for that were well rehearsed on Second Reading.
The debate that we had then was one of the most interesting that I have attended in the House, because I did not hear any hon. Member from any party saying anything in support of the Government. Every Member who spoke opposed to the Government's proposals: some because they felt that the Government had not gone far enough, others because they felt that they had gone far too far and that, having waited for Lord Cullen's report, they should have accepted its recommendations.
We saw the dismantling of guns demonstrated in the House yesterday—although, when I originally saw the Cullen recommendations, I wondered whether it would be possible to dismantle certain pistols—and it would have been sensible to proceed to legislate on that basis. Instead, we have a Bill which to a great extent ignores Lord Cullen's inquiry and which will destroy the sport of target shooting, in which Britain excels. The Bill jeopardises the future of all British shooting sports and does nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns illegally. There is plenty of expert advice to the effect that as many guns are circulating illegally as legally.
The Bill has distracted attention from the regrettable policing failure at Dunblane. It will cost about 2,000 jobs in the shooting industry, and there is considerable debate about the extent of compensation. If the new clause and amendments were accepted, a figure of about £300 million has been suggested.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend mean an extra £300 million? If looks as though the present proposals will cost £200 million. Does he mean that a further £300 million will be required, bringing the cost to £500 million?

Mr. Colvin: A lot of figures are being bandied about. Whether it is £200 million or £300 million—

Mr. Budgen: Would it be £300 million extra?

Mr. Colvin: It could be extra. But the Treasury says that we cannot pay out more than £50 million. The dead hand of the Treasury, rather than justice, is dictating policy.

Sir Anthony Grant: If the Government had accepted the advice of the high-powered review that they set up, headed by a distinguished judge, they would not be in this mess. The Government will have to pay up: they are the authors of their own misfortune.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend puts it rather better than I did. Whether the figure is £300 million or £500 million, the present figure of between £25 million and £50 million is a gross underestimate. The Government are legalising the confiscation of private property and paying very little in return. It is nothing short of legalised robbery.
There was some evidence in Standing Committee that the Government will move on compensation for related equipment and accessories belonging to people who shoot

with pistols. A good case has been made for compensation for them. I searched the Bill as amended in Committee and could find no reference to compensation going beyond weapons. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what is proposed when he winds up. That will have a profound effect on the amount of money required to pay compensation.
To give the House some idea of what is involved, I shall quote some letters. Throughout the debate it has been interesting to observe the litmus test of our postbags. Normally when we are dealing with something controversial and emotional—the whole debate has been surrounded by a welter of emotion, which is unfortunate but a fact of life, or death, that we must accept—our postbags are a good litmus test. The letters that I have received in support of the new clause, and generally in support of Lord Cullen's proposals, outweigh the others by 10 to one. There were no letters saying that the Government have got it right, but a few said that the Government should have gone still further.
I have a letter from a constituent who came to see me, Mr. R. G. Newnham. He has weapons worth £645 that will have to be surrendered and destroyed. His equipment is worth £810—more than the value of his guns. I have half a mind to hand the letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because it is in fact an invoice made out to him in the hope that he will pay. There are others. If my right hon. and learned Friend is minded to accept that invoice, I have another bill that he might like to deal with from Mr. John Southey of Chiswick. His guns are worth £5,000 and his equipment £3,700.

Mr. Michael Stern: Under the Government's proposals, can my hon. Friend imagine the reaction of those gentlemen if their invoices reach the Home Secretary and they are told that he disagrees with their valuations and has no intention of entering into discussion about what he intends to pay them, whether they like it or not?

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is even more important to support amendment (a) to amendment No. 74, which provides for arbitration in such circumstances.
I have other letters. Mr. Peter Brown of Great Missenden states:
I am one of the unfortunate members of the gun trade who are going to lose their business, livelihood and house, all because of the actions of a madman. Our loss adjusters, MPC, who are working on behalf of the gun trade report to us that the Home Office will not compensate us for consequential losses.
I am going to lose everything!
Mr. C. A. Reddy of Itchen Valley Shooting Club, another constituent of mine, will lose about £2,000-worth of guns and £3,500-worth of equipment. Worse than that, his gun club will have to wind up because there is no way that it will be able to preserve its membership if large-bore pistol shooting stops. Most of its members will not change to .22 shooting: one or two might, but the vast majority will not.
5.45 pm
The Snowdrop campaign argues that compensation should not be paid to such people, because, having had to surrender their large-bore pistols, they will buy .22s


instead, so the number of firearms will not be reduced. That is just not so. Anyone with experience of shooting with pistols realises that shooting with .22 pistols and shooting with large-bore pistols are as different as chalk and cheese. Itchen Valley shooting club will probably have to close because it faces costs of £6,000 or £7,000 to carry out the modifications to the premises required by the Bill. It also faces a serious loss of membership revenue.
Another typical example is the Nottingham shooting centre, which was established in 1988 by Bruce Rainford, a miner who invested his redundancy money in the business with his friends Brian Phillips and Pauline Perrins. Their business employs four other people and has an annual turnover of £300,000. The centre is used by nearly 1,000 shooters and includes a 10-point range, workshop, test range and retail outlet. The Bill would put Bruce and his partners out of business.
One of the most moving letters that I received came from Mr. Frank Spittle of Wolverhampton, who wrote:
Having shot for my Country in peace and war, now seeing the small shop that I have worked for and the sport I have served since the war, ruined by you and this Government, how can you expect the most law abiding citizens to trust you again. Please read my small book"—
he has sent it to me and I am happy to lend it to other hon. Members—
then tell me and my two sons who will now lose their jobs why this is happening.
The compensation limit is due to the dead hand of the Treasury. Hon. Members have made the case on precedents. The Australians decided to pay fair compensation for weapons. We could and should follow that precedent.
The true cost, when all the calculations are done, will probably be in the region of £300 million. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said about the European convention on human rights. Its key clause is article 1 of the first protocol, which states:
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided by law and by the general principles of international law.
There is every reason why people might use that convention to get proper compensation. There are probably plenty of reasons why they might not succeed, but it is worth a try. The House of Commons Library briefing refers to the Bill of Rights of 1689 as another piece of legislation which might be used in this case.
I ask the House to support new clause 4 and the other amendments to which I have referred. If the Government are determined to oppose the new clause and the amendments, at least let them undertake to look at the matter again before it goes to the other place.

Mr. Salmond: I thought that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was about to end with a clarion call for a written constitution, and I was on the edge of my seat waiting for that case to be argued.
I should like to speak briefly in support of some of the arguments tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Gentleman and I frequently find

ourselves converging from initially different points to a point of agreement—a process which is deeply disconcerting to both of us.
None the less, it is undeniable that he had a point when he argued that it would be quite wrong if holders of .22 calibre weapons, who surrendered them voluntarily, were treated any less favourably than the holders of higher-calibre weapons who surrendered them under the legislation. The Government have addressed that in amendment No. 79, but part of that discrepancy is inherent in the distinction that the Government have chosen to make in their legislation between .22 weapons and weapons of a higher calibre. It has become apparent from our proceedings that that distinction cannot be intellectually defended.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside referred briefly to the concern felt by some of us who are sympathetic to the case for compensation that those who are compensated for weapons surrendered could use the money to invest in other .22 calibre weapons. I generally accept the argument that in the short term the number of .22 weapons will decline, but I am much less certain about the medium term.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby put his finger on an important point, because, at meetings the Home Secretary has openly speculated on new gun clubs coming into existence which fulfil the requirements of the legislation. Those new high-tech gun clubs would be suitable for those who wished to opt for .22 calibre weapons. The Home Secretary seemed to welcome that as a potential process when we debated the matter in Committee on the Floor of the House. Some of us find extremely disturbing the idea that people could use compensation given for weapons surrendered under the terms of the legislation to re-invest in .22 calibre weapons, which in many senses are just as dangerous as the higher-calibre weapons.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether he would agree that his point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) given way?

Mr. Salmond: No. I have finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Sir Patrick Cormack.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The issue before the House is essentially an extremely simple one. As Members of Parliament, we have two overriding duties. One is to call the Executive to account and the other is to protect minorities. On this occasion we must call the Executive to account because the Government have handled this matter less than adroitly.
The Government set up the Cullen inquiry to the acclamation of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Lord Cullen produced his report and, had the Government decided to accept it, they would have been immune from criticism. The Government, however, decided to go their own way in an arbitrary and ill-advised manner. It is not appropriate to discuss now wholesale bans or other issues, because the House has made its decision. We must accept that and live with it.
The consequences of the decision that the House has taken, under Government prompting and according to a timetable that is extremely constrained, are that many innocent people will suffer because they will no longer be able to practise their legitimate sport. I do not think that one should lightly dismiss that, not least because shooting is a sport at which people in this country have excelled and brought back many honours to it. Shooting with a gun is just as legitimate a sport as shooting with a bow and arrow.
The Government have deprived many innocent people of that sport, including, as we have learnt from debates on the Bill, a great many handicapped people who cannot take part in other sports. They have done far worse than that, however, because they have deprived many people of their livelihood. Their action is nothing less than blatant confiscation without compensation. That is something that no Conservative should contemplate.
I echo the thanks that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) offered to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I urge him to go further and emulate another Howard in another Conservative Government. Australia has had a terrible shooting tragedy, but the Prime Minister of that Conservative Government has not balked at insisting that compensation should be proper and adequate.
I do not believe that any of us can look our constituents in the face if we do not meet our moral obligation. I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that what is morally wrong is never politically right. What we are doing now is morally wrong.

Sir Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend has been in the House for a year or two. He will recall that in the mid-1970s the then Labour Government nationalised the shipbuilding industry among others and gave wholly inadequate compensation. The Conservative Opposition quite rightly fought that tooth and nail for the very reason about which my hon. Friend has just spoken—fairness. It would be perverse and a blot on the record of a highly successful Conservative Government of 17 years if we let the Bill go through without providing compensation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a Conservative Government must never allow that to happen.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend is right. The terms of the legislation fly in the face of our achievement and our principles. We are not being true to either if we proceed along the line that my right hon. and learned Friend has commended to the House. What the new clause suggests is right and proper, and the least that people have the right to expect.
The House has decreed that people should lose their livelihoods and their sport, and the House, having willed that particular end, must therefore will the means to soften the blow. We can only do that by offering adequate compensation.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) made some pertinent points in his speech and I agreed with him. He was right to advocate some form of arbitration to adjudicate on the valuations. There is plenty of time for the Government to get it right. All that we need tonight from the Home Secretary is a simple acknowledgment of the fact that, to

date, we have not been fair. The Conservative party should always be fair in its dealings with people. All that he has to say to the House is that he is determined to be fair. If he says that, it can be put right in another place, and we can make sure that proper amendments are moved by Ministers in another place to provide that adequate compensation.
That is all that we need from my right hon. and learned Friend. If he cannot say that, I am afraid that I certainly cannot go into the Lobby to support him. I say that with great regret. I have no desire to vote against him, because I admire much of what he stands for and what he has done. Tonight I do not think that he will be true to his oft-stated principles if he does not ensure that compensation is proper and adequate and is seen to be fair in all corners of the land.

Mr. William Ross: The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, although we will no doubt get it at some point. Whether it is needed in Northern Ireland is a moot point, given the strictness of the legislation that already governs firearms there; but, because it does not currently extend to Northern Ireland, I have not seen fit to speak much on the Bill thus far.
I have not always been popular when I have expressed my views on firearms—not least during the passage of the last firearms Bill, when I kept the House up for much of the night. I do not think that the Government behaved well on that occasion. I suspect that, had they considered some of the amendments to that Bill and had they listened, to and put into effect all the recommendations from the Firearms Consultative Committee—those recommendations were supposed to have been put into operation at the first legislative opportunity, but were not—we might not be in the position we are in this evening, with the tragedy of Dunblane behind us.

6 pm

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I remind the House that, on the last occasion, Northern Ireland was included, but only a few hours before the termination of proceedings in the House? Let him beware—who knows what might happen on this occasion?

Mr. Ross: I am not unaware of the hon. Gentleman's point, but nor am I unaware of some of the statements that were made in the House on the subject of fireworks a few days ago. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that he resented
the killjoy tendency in Britain whereby when there is a crisis or accident, there is an emotional spasm that says everything must stop."—[Official Report,  20 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 899.]
Whether that comment has anything to do with the fact that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents were engaged in making the things, I shall leave to the judgment of others. I make no such accusation.
I also noticed that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) mentioned the use of pellet guns, but he did not mention kitchen knives, with which I am sure he has had to deal in the course of his professional career outside.
Having said that, I am happy to support new clause 4, which stands in the names of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and his hon. Friends


and to which I have put my name. I have one quibble, however, in that it tries to define every individual or group who might be affected. For that reason, I also saw fit to put my name to new clause 7, in the names of the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley).
New clause 7 would implement what is really the Australian legislation, which is far more comprehensive, but which might not have the precision and clarity that appeals to the Home Secretary's mind. Whether his precision and clarity meet the current case is a question that I would answer in the negative. That is why I have to say that, although I support the new clause currently being debated, I would have preferred it if the Government had been prepared to go further. I am happy to see so many hon. Members putting the same point to the Home Secretary.
I draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 74, standing in the name of the Home Secretary, which states:
'ancillary equipment' means equipment, other than prohibited ammunition
and goes on to refer to ancillary equipment that
has no practicable use in connection with any firearm which is not a prohibited weapon.
In reality, that is an exclusion. It does not include much ancillary equipment and it actually excludes much equipment that the layman, reading the clever wording, might think was included.
The amendment means that, if a piece of ancillary equipment can be used for any other type of shooting, no payment will be made—at least, I feel sure that the clever ladies and gentlemen employed by the Home Secretary will find a way of saying to owners, "That is excluded, because you can use it for shotguns or rifles." Even a holster can be used for another type of firearm. The amendment is intended to be used to cut the amount of compensation paid.
Today, I talked to an expert on firearms who acts as an expert witness in courts in this country and elsewhere. He pointed out that loose bullets are not currently illegal. Regardless of their nature, a firearms certificate is not needed to purchase loose bullets, because they are not ammunition until they have been loaded in the case along with the explosive material. He has a large collection—he admits that he bought some of the items for "silly money"—which includes hollow-point expanding ammunition. It is not included in his firearms certificate—it does not have to be. He pointed out to me that one of the consequences of the Bill is that, as soon as it is enacted, he will be caught. Because that ammunition, which is valuable and which he uses in his work, is not included in his firearms certificate, he will be unable to claim compensation.
The Home Secretary has to look at compensation in a more comprehensive fashion. He will find all sorts of nooks and crannies that will exclude people from receiving compensation to which any reasonable man or woman would say they were morally entitled. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take my words in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. Problems will arise.
This Bill, like so much legislation that is founded on emotion—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 springs to mind—will have many completely unforeseen

consequences. People will suffer severe handicaps and consequences that cannot now be foreseen, and all because the legislation was not properly thought through. I believe that the issue should be examined by a royal commission if we are to get sensible firearms legislation in this country.
I fully support the point made by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). If we are going to satisfy anyone, there must be independent arbitration. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has noted that on page 41, line 45, the Bill states:
The chief officer of police shall not be obliged to make pistols delivered to him under paragraph 2 above available for inspection either by the certificate holder or by any other person.
The Home Secretary needs to go away and look at that, if we are to have the independent arbitration that is needed. Under that provision, an independent arbitrator could not get his hands on a pistol to determine its value and what level of compensation should be paid.
The Bill affects a large number of items that are really collectors' pieces of historical value. I know of a man in Northern Ireland who has two of Blair Mayne's pistols. The name of Blair Mayne should be known to every military historian in the House, because he was one of the early members of the Special Air Services and a man whose exploits excited admiration across the western world during his lifetime. Those pistols, by the very fact that they were once owned by that man, have acquired considerable value to collectors. The Home Secretary might say that the pistols are pre-1946 and therefore escape the legislation, but I wanted to mention them because their calibre might well pull them within its scope. It is in that sort of area that the real difficulties will arise.
The number of people who will lose as a result of the Bill is remarkable—it includes not only dealers, but the people who work for them; the people who write, produce and distribute magazines; and manufacturers of ammunition. In addition, there will be enormous loss in unforeseen nooks and crannies.
I totally disagree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who complained about people using compensation that is properly payable to them to buy a legal weapon. Why should they not? I should have thought that part of the purpose behind the compensation was to allow people to continue in their sport, although with a smaller calibre weapon, if they so desired.
I listened with care to the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He did not say it, but I think that he was pointing to the fact that, if compensation is to be paid, it must be paid over a much longer period than is currently envisaged either by the Home Secretary or in the Bill.
I say in passing that on Monday 9 December we shall discuss the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, and in that debate right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt be delighted to learn that the IRA and other terrorist organisations have up to five years in which to surrender the horrendous weaponry they possess, which contrasts with what the Home Secretary proposes in this Bill. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
If some people say that compensation should not be paid for loss of business, I suggest that the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers consider


Northern Ireland and especially the Irish Land Acts, in which many of these things were taken into account. On that occasion, however, the Government were only acting as the people who provided the down payment—the capital—and eventually the tenant farmers had to pay the compensation.

Mr. Budgen: As anyone listening to the debate must reflect, it is extraordinary that any competent Government and any competent Opposition can have got into such a jam. We have before us, not a Government measure, but an agreed measure, one of the most dangerous measures that one could ever find—an agreement that has been cobbled together in a hurry between the two Front Benches and foisted on to a reluctant and amazed House of Commons.
On reflection, it is amazing that we are dealing, not with the 96 per cent. of crimes committed with firearms which are committed with an illegally held weapon, but with the 4 per cent. of such crimes that are committed with a legally held weapon, and we are trying to reduce that 4 per cent. yet further.
Surely, when we try to reduce that 4 per cent. yet further, we should consider the matter sensibly and logically, as though we were deciding whether it was necessary to straighten a corner on a road or legitimate to give a person an expensive operation. We consider the cost—which must be met by our fellow citizens—and ask whether, in the circumstances, the cost is justified and is likely to produce the saving of life that we hope for.
I shall not attack the Government for the Bill; that would be grossly unfair. This is a Front-Bench Bill, a Front-Bench conspiracy against the House of Commons.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is a Government Bill.

Mr. Budgen: No, it is not at all. It is entirely supported—[Interruption.] Let us have no nonsense about this. The Opposition have not opposed the Bill; they have welcomed it. They have entirely given up their proper constitutional duty of criticising and improving legislation, and they have rushed behind the Government, urging them to proceed ever faster.
The jam that we have got ourselves in was foreseeable. In the Government's response to the Cullen report, which was published in October 1996—

Mr. Salmond: I am not following the hon. Gentleman. Why is it not a legitimate rule of any Opposition party to criticise the Government for not going far enough? Why is not that a legitimate part of Opposition criticism? I do not understand the point.

Mr. Budgen: Let me say immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am confining myself entirely to the new clauses and not raising any wider issues. [Laughter]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could have fooled me. He has now given me some comfort.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman asks me to concentrate on the role of the Government and the official Opposition. At page 6 of the Government's reply to the

Cullen report, they list very many restrictions that they claim should be imposed on gun clubs to make them safer and to ensure that guns and handguns cannot be stolen. They continue:
Very few, if any, existing gun clubs will meet these security requirements"—
in other words, "We shall put 'em out of business by the back door."
What will happen if one puts people out of business and takes away their livelihood? In his interesting little booklet, Mr. Spittle from Wolverhampton points out that most gun clubs were set up after the South African war to encourage people in this country to shoot more accurately. If it be the case that we shall turn patriots into criminals, it is likely—unless, by the dictatorship of agreement, we deprive those people of the right to do so—that they will ask for compensation; and it looks as though the compensation will be very great.
6.15 pm
We bandy such figures about, but we have just spent a week discussing a Budget that, net, makes a difference of £1.8 billion—quite a lot of money, but not very much in proportion to public expenditure. Tonight we casually suggest that, because the Government have not considered the cost of the Act, we might have to compensate people for unnecessary security measures to the tune of at least £300 million. Is that good government? Is it good opposition? Is it a sensible way in which to spend the taxpayer's money?
Surely it would be sensible for a Government making such proposals to say honestly: "Plainly, those people will demand compensation for a long time and the cost could be very large. We tell the House, this is what the cost will be." If there were an Opposition who welcomed the legislation, who said, "We support the European convention on human rights; indeed, we want to give more power to that convention," would not they say, "Look here, the cost is enormous. Is it justified for the very slight advantages that might be obtained by extra security?"
Three hundred million pounds—

Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Budgen: Let me finish the sentence. Three hundred million pounds, which we are demanding, is an awful lot of money. I shall vote for that compensation, but I shall do so with regret, because it is a waste of money. A great many people could be saved and given more years of happy life by better treatment in the national health service.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Budgen: Yes, for £300 million. Some children could be saved by better maternity services for £300 million. This is a gross—

Mr. Robert Jackson: rose—

Mr. Budgen: This is a gross waste of money, which derives most of all from bad government, from


ill-considered government, from panic reaction and from allowing the House of Commons to use its powers as though it were a lynch mob.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend—

Mr. Robert Jackson: rose—

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose—

Mr. Budgen: I shall just answer my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), if I may.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is giving way?

Mr. Budgen: I am giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, and then I was going to finish.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has been most courteous, as usual.

Mr. Budgen: As occasionally.

Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend is most courteous to me, as he always is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is talking about the costs to the Government. I have a constituent who makes ammunition for handguns only. The cost to him would be enormous. His way of life, his father's way of life and his livelihood would be gone for ever. It is as though the whole Government's money slipped away in our world. There must be dozens of people—not hundreds, but dozens—in a similar position.

Mr. Budgen: I agree with my hon. Friend. People will complain about the Bill for many a year.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my hon. Friend consider that the Government would have rushed into the legislation in the way that they have if they had believed that they would have to pay the compensation?

Mr. Budgen: These claims, as I said earlier, were entirely foreseeable. One did not have to be a genius, or even a fellow of All Souls, to foresee them.

Sir Terence Higgins: I remain of the view that the people of Dunblane, or anywhere else, are the victims of a cruel delusion if they believe that this measure will reduce the risk of a repetition. On the contrary, by driving maniacs into the illegal market, it may even increase the risk of a repetition. Hamilton should have been detected—as witness the resignation of a senior police officer.
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said earlier, and with those who say that the arrangements suggested by Cullen would have been a great deal safer—large stores of

weapons would not have been kept in one spot—and a great deal cheaper. I cannot help wondering: what on earth were Treasury Ministers in the Cabinet doing when they allowed the Government to go beyond Cullen, with all the attendant implications for public expenditure? I cannot understand it.
In those circumstances, however, it is right that the Government should compensate people who lose business, and others who, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman said, may lose their homes and jobs without entitlement to unemployment benefit. Those who will have to give up their equipment, which may be worth twice as much as the weapons themselves—or even more—ought clearly to be compensated.
One of the troubles with guillotine motions is not just that some issues do not get debated but that some speeches tend not to be made at all because they are crowded out. I shall therefore make only two or three points.
The first arises from the amount of compensation to be paid. I was sent a letter by the then Home Secretary on 31 May 1988 about the compensation payable following the Hungerford tragedy. At that stage, it was either to be a fixed amount for the pistol concerned, or just 50 per cent. of its value because, it was claimed, the other 50 per cent. was the amount that would be made by the dealer. That just shows how much dealers will lose if they are not compensated.
I do not think that that kind of valuation is fair. The right approach is to assess a weapon's value to the person who has given it up—not what he could get for it in a forced sale at auction but how much he paid for it, allowing for depreciation and so on.
Secondly, we must consider carefully the position of clubs that find themselves operating with a reduced membership because only lower calibre weapons will be available. They will have to invest a great deal so as to meet the new requirements. My constituents told me last Friday that they do not know how much compensation there will be, or what the timetable is, or what conditions they will have to meet.
They were also under the delusion—I do not share it—that there might be a Labour Government in a few months' time. Labour is clearly on record as saying that it will ban guns completely. It is wholly unreasonable to expect clubs in the meantime to invest a great deal of money in getting their clubs approved, only to find after the election that all the money has been wasted. Many of them will go out of business; that, too, will require compensation.
Finally, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who was very reasonable about amending the money resolution, carefully to consider the question of timing—in relation to compensation payments, in relation to when the weapons will have to be given up, and in relation to when the clubs will have to meet the new arrangements for security. I hope that he will soon publish his intentions as regards those arrangements.
I believe that my hon. Friend's new clause is right, and if he forces it to a Division, I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.

Mr. Gill: I support new clause 4 because I share the concern expressed by Members on both sides for the


scores of people whose livelihoods will be, or have already been, endangered by this legislation. I am thinking of people like the proprietors of Minsterley Ranges in my constituency, who tell me that 70 per cent. of the activity at their well-equipped and well-managed establishment involves the shooting of pistols. If this legislation is enacted, those proprietors will be left with 30 per cent. of their former turnover with which to sustain a sizeable investment and a large establishment. Anyone with any experience of business will know that that is almost impossible.
I am sad to find myself this evening having to advocate higher public expenditure. I understand the Government's reluctance to pay for consequential losses and to set a precedent; on the other hand, there is no precedent for Government moving so decisively to outlaw a whole sport and an entire trade. This is not an academic exercise; we are talking about the livelihoods of people with varying amounts of capital sunk in their businesses—ranging from their savings to their homes. Many have devoted their life's work to those businesses.
We are also talking about all the people who are employed in the trade, and about those who depend on them.

Mr. Robert Key: Unfortunately, there is a precedent—the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers): the head de-boners in the beef trade, whose livelihood has been extinguished overnight. Another precedent will be set when the House comes to consider revising, upgrading and strengthening the quarantine regulations. Quarantine kennel owners will have to be compensated, as recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and his colleagues on the Agriculture Select Committee. The process is set to go on and on. The more Governments intervene in, and regulate, our lives, the more compensation will have to be paid out. We shall have to grasp that nettle at some point.

Mr. Gill: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. My point was that I recognise the Government's reluctance to accept their undoubted moral obligation to pay for consequential loss suffered by the people who operate clubs and who supply the sport as retailers or manufacturers.
These are specialist businesses that have no scope for diversification. I recognise the heavy cost to the taxpayer of the compensation that has already been conceded. I further recognise that the bill for the loss experienced by all the groups that I have itemised would be substantial. Had the Government accepted the recommendations of the Cullen report, the cost would have been significantly less.
The new clause is an attempt to avoid setting the precedent that Parliament is in danger of creating if the law of the land at a stroke destroys a legitimate trade and bona fide businesses without underwriting the devastating costs to those affected. That would amount, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, to downright confiscation.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: My heart tells me that we should not give anyone any compensation for giving up guns. That would be obscene—

Mr. Budgen: Why?

Mr. Martin: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. First, though, let me say that I hope that the logic of compensation will be extended to other facets of society.

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Martin: I shall not give way, because I must be brief.
I recall that I had to put the case for people who worked in the meat industry and who were told that, for non-medical reasons, they must shut up shop. Their livelihood was lost but, with few exceptions, no one complained.
The railway industry used to employ 3,000 people in my constituency. When the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, decided to do away with the railway industry, no one asked about those who would lose their livelihoods. After seven years, there are still former railway workers without a livelihood.
The Home Secretary may be considering giving people compensation for the loss of their guns. I hope that the argument will not apply to gun club premises or to the targets, which I consider obscene. They are not the red, white and blue targets that I used when I was in the Territorial Army. They are targets in the shape of human beings, and the general public should not pay compensation for them.
Civilian gun clubs should not associate themselves with the military. I worry about people who dress up as soldiers at the weekend and on Wednesday night and go out with high-calibre guns, pretending to be SAS men. As Thomas Hamilton showed us, there are an awful lot of Walter Mittys running about those gun clubs. That was not the first time that someone took a gun out of a gun club and shot people. There was such an incident a few years ago in Glasgow.
If we go down the road of giving compensation to the gun clubs, it should be remembered that, as a result of the Budget resolutions, sports centres in my constituency and elsewhere will be closed. People will lose their sports, hobbies and pastimes because of Government decisions to close sports centres. I hear no talk of compensation for them. We have heard about cuts in health service spending. People will die because they cannot get heart operations in time. I hope that the relatives of people who die as a result of Government cuts in spending will receive compensation.
The Government have opened up a can of worms by undertaking to give compensation to a sport that is pursued by relatively few people. If the Government give compensation to gun owners, they should compensate everyone who suffers a loss as a result of Government policy.

Sir Michael Grylls: This has been a powerful debate, ably instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). The common thread running through it from our side and from the Liberal Benches has been the strong feeling on the subject of compensation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has listened carefully to the debate and is always responsive to feelings in the House. I am sure that he will take on board the strong views expressed from our side during the debate, and our abhorrence of the idea of putting people out of business, destroying clubs and ruining people's lives without proper compensation. I do not believe that my right hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have high regard, would allow that to happen.
I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South—West (Mr. Budgen) who said in his extremely entertaining speech that the Government had not realised that there would be such an uprising by people in the clubs and firearms industry, all claiming compensation. I think that the Government probably did realise that that would happen, but as always—in a way, understandably, as they are dealing with taxpayers' money—they have been fighting a rearguard action, possibly waiting to see the strength of feeling on behalf of the clubs. I do not go along with my hon. Friend on that.
The Government have a proud record. In the past 17 years, more than 1 million new business have started up. We have let the enterprise culture blossom. My right hon. and learned Friend played an important part in that when he was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, encouraging people to be enterprising, set up their own firms, look after themselves and be successful. Some of the dealers would have set up their businesses during that time. It would be absurd for them suddenly to be put out of business.
As I said earlier in an intervention, those of us who lived through the nationalisation debates in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries around 1975, when we opposed so bitterly the inadequate and disgraceful compensation that the then Labour Government allowed to go through Parliament, could never allow that to happen. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take that on board.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) and I have the privilege jointly—I am never sure where the boundary is—of representing Bisley, the mecca of all shooting. We both have many clubs in our constituencies, many people who are distinguished shots and have represented their country, and many important firearms firms, which will be severely damaged.
Stopping people pursuing the sport of shooting with the weapons that are to be banned is not the topic of this debate. The dealers and clubs are our present concern. There are various precedents that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to deploy in arguing for the money with the Treasury. For example, the Government give people grants to insulate their homes. It is public policy to encourage the insulation of houses, and people are given grants to help them. That is a minor matter, compared with the removal of people's livelihoods and putting clubs out of business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare pointed out, people have given guarantees backed up by the value of their house in order to keep their club going.
It would be a disgraceful blot on the Government's proud record if that is not put right. I am confident that the Government will put it right. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has listened to every word spoken in the debate and that, having heard the strength of feeling among Conservative Members, he will think the matter through and respond by ensuring that people are treated fairly.

Sir Hector Monro: I warmly support my right hon. and hon. Friends who have given their support to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin).
It is clear from the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House that pistol shooting, a great deal of indoor rifle shooting and possibly outdoor rifle shooting as well will be dealt a mortal blow by the Bill. The trade will suffer severely. It is inevitable that the majority of clubs will close, because they will not be able to afford the stringent requirements of the Home Secretary to keep them secure from attack by terrorists or other serious incidents.
Many rifle ranges are located in remote areas, so security will be hard to enforce. That task will be even more difficult if we demand that pistols be kept complete at ranges rather than storing them in different parts, as we shall suggest later tonight. I accept that my right hon. and learned Friend has made a number of valuable concessions in the past few weeks in accordance with our views. I urge him to reconsider the matter carefully, and to look particularly to the Australian example, when he winds up the debate.
While now is not the time to talk about our international prowess in pistol and rifle shooting, we must remember that it will be impossible for our high calibre shooters to practice if there are no rifle clubs. As I have said before, I visited the shooting ranges at the last Commonwealth games and saw how effectively and efficiently they were run. Sadly, we might not have even limited competition at the Manchester Commonwealth games, as the gun associations may decide to stay away if the disciplines are curtailed dramatically.
I hope that it will be possible for the Home Secretary to remove some of the current uncertainty surrounding the valuations issue. There is little knowledge of exactly how the valuations will be carried out, who will conduct them, whether there will be some form of appeal and which weapons will be confiscated. For example, when is a muzzle loader an antique? That sort of question springs immediately to mind. On 18 November, my hon. Friend the Minister said that muzzle loaders require firearms certificates, yet the Home Office information leaflet states that antiques do not require a certificate. Where do we draw the line between a muzzle loader and an antique? That is not an easy decision to make.
I hope that such questions will be clarified soon. Will all flintlocks be classified as antiques? The situation is unclear at present. Those who may lose their weapons do not know which firearms will be classified as antiques or perhaps war trophies. My hon. Friend the Minister promised to put down an amendment regarding inherited war trophies, but that does not appear on the Order Paper.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary shall explain tonight how valuations will be carried out, in addition to outlining the assistance that he plans to provide for the rifle and pistol ranges mentioned in the new clause. I do not think that he realises how many letters hon. Members have received from individuals and from clubs all over the country expressing their fears about a bleak future. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will rethink the issue and consider whether he should provide still more assistance. No one is saying that we should abandon the legislation—that matter was decided in the House at Second Reading—but we must make substantial progress in offering concessions to those whom it will damage severely.

Mr. Frank Cook: There seems to be much confusion about what target gun clubs are and what they are not. I assure the House that the target shooters I have met do not dress up like SAS Spetsnaz, and they do not shoot at each other on Friday nights with high-calibre guns. If they did—and if they were good shots—there would be very few of them left. Such descriptions refer to those foolish middle-aged teenagers who squirt paint-soaked sponge balls at each other, pretending to play the old game ''Bang, bang, you're dead".
We are talking about people who engage in a very respectable sport. When its proponents returned to this country with eight gold medals, we hailed them as national heroes—and we still do. Carol Paige has competed for almost 30 years from a wheelchair. She has proved that she is every bit as good a marksperson—it is the first time that I have used that word—as any able-bodied person competing on the range. She deserves our respect. She represented her country in that sport, and she would like to continue to do so.
It is not a joke: serious target shooters do not shoot at human form or NATO targets. They shoot at measured circles in black and white—not colour—and they calculate their scores precisely. Let us get the facts straight.
I think that any discussion of compensation at this stage is a capitulation: it is a concession that the prohibition will be enforced, and that therefore we must salvage what we can. I think that that is a sign of weakness. However, we must consider the issue seriously. Ultimately, we must ensure not that we maximise the amount of compensation but that it is adequate. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 29 October, enclosing a copy of a letter from a constituent. I am grateful to the Minister of State for her extremely helpful reply.
However, she said:
Those who have higher calibre handguns will have the opportunity to sell them before the prohibition comes into force".
I have tried hard to get my head around that statement. I ask myself, "Who on earth will they sell their guns to?" If gun owners can do so legally, they might sell their firearms to Jack the lad, who will use them on the street to enhance his income. Perhaps they will sell them on the continent. However, the German gun dealers are already saying that they will not buy guns until the prohibition comes into force, because they know that they will pay less for them then. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will acknowledge that point.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; my hon. Friends and I are enjoying his speech immensely.
He may be interested to know that one of my constituents telephoned the Home Office seeking suggestions as to what he should do with his redundant—I fear that is what they will become—firearms. The person on the end of the telephone told my constituent that he should sell his firearms abroad. That was the official advice provided by someone in the Home Office, and it

demonstrates the desperate state of affairs. The hon. Gentleman is correct: the proceeds from forced gun sales would be a pittance compared with their real worth.

Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—it is probably the only time that we have agreed on anything. He makes a serious point: that is the sort of issue that I am trying to highlight.
I have sought the views of the Greater Manchester police—which have been confirmed by observers in the Metropolitan police—who say that, according to realistic estimates, 2,500 handguns cross the Channel from the continent into Britain every week. I put it to the House that we can have all the compensation we want, we can sell the guns to the Germans, and then Jack the lad can buy them back at a lower price next week. It is easier and cheaper to buy a gun illegally than to procure one properly with a certificate. Adequate compensation must be considered seriously. I shall support the amendment.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is sometimes easy to speak in the abstract in this sort of debate. Therefore, I shall tell the House about one small gun club out of more than 2,000—it happens to be in Market Rasen, but it could be anywhere.
The club meets in a small hut and has 20 or 30 members. It was founded in 1906, and its constitution proclaims that its purpose is patriotic: to train people for national emergencies. There are faded pictures on the hut's walls of the club's original members, but nowadays its members shoot only with .22 calibre pistols at small black-and-white targets. They pursue their sport with immense care and precision.
In the corner of that small wooden hut is a safe. The club is likely to be required by the police to erect high barbed-wire fences all around the hut. It is in the middle of a suburban area and houses are adjacent to it. There is no way in which it would ever get planning permission. It could survive, possibly, if the local police allowed it to leave the safe where it is and surround it with a concrete structure, but if the local police demand high barbed-wire fences and reinforced doors—which are pointless, because people could simply drill through the walls—it would almost certainly go under. It is just one club out of 2,000, and that would be replicated all over the country.
I could talk about Dunholme pistol club, which is in a similar situation. I could talk about a farmer in Reepham, who has put his life savings into creating a similar club.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Leigh: No. I shall make a very short speech and then sit down.
The point that I am making is that this is a profoundly un-Tory Bill. It is inimical to the principle to which we have always adhered: that legislation should be tried and tested. It is inimical to the principle of private property. Those two principles have been at the heart of our party's thinking since it was founded. Because we are laying aside those principles, 20 or 30 members in that small club in Market Rasen will lose their sport, and there will be no compensation.

Mr. Home Secretary: let right be done.

Mr. Michael Stern: Unlike many of my hon. Members—indeed, hon. Members on


both sides of the House—I am not familiar with guns; I barely know one end of a gun from the other. I recommend that no one ever test me on the subject. I am here to talk about people. The new clause is fundamentally flawed in that it treats gun clubs, their members and supporters shoddily—which, like many of my hon. Friends, I never expected to see from a Conservative Government.
Before my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary came into the House, he was a very distinguished lawyer. Indeed, he is still regarded as such. In Committee, he quoted precedents for failure to give compensation in this case. May I point out to him two things? First, as any lawyer will know, there are always precedents on both sides. He has, quite understandably, given precedents for the Government to fail to pay compensation. May I point out to him the other precedents, of Governments who, often through gritted teeth, avoided any question of nationalisation without compensation, by paying compensation even when they did not believe in it?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the Labour Government after 1945 believed that they should pay compensation to mine owners or steel owners? Of course they did not, but nevertheless, as a matter of fairness, as a matter—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) put it—of morality, they paid compensation, because they did not believe that any democratic Government should remove people's assets without doing so.
That is a principle for which my right hon. and learned Friend and I, in our earlier days in politics, criticised Labour Members when they sought to make a breach of that principle Labour party policy. I find it very worrying that the Government now propose the exact opposite of the principles for which we have fought for many years.
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), that, if compensation is paid for one type of gun, people will—quite legitimately under the Bill—spend it on another type of gun. I disagree fundamentally with his approach to the Bill, but I accept that there is force in his argument. I put it to him, however, that that argument is not appropriate to the new clause before us.
The people who will be deprived of compensation under the clause, particularly club owners and supporters, will not be the ones who then go out and spend the money on building up a new club, because they will not have the money in the first place. The point he made may well be appropriate to the main body of the Bill, in relation to compensation to gun owners, but it is entirely inappropriate for the Government to offer compensation to gun clubs.

Mr. Salmond: I was making the point in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Member for South Hams seems to agree that they apply in that case.

Mr. Stern: They may well apply in that case, but certainly not in the context of new clause 4, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin).
If new clause 4 does not go through, a number of my constituents who shoot at gun clubs in Yate and Nailsea will be deprived of their occupation and hobby. That is what one would normally expect of a Government who are introducing ill-conceived legislation. But many of my constituents will suffer much more deeply at the hands of the Government. They will be deprived of their assets. They will be treated by the Government as second-class citizens. They have done nothing to deserve that treatment. I do not believe that they sent me here to condone it.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I raised a number of points on Second Reading and in Committee, but they were not adequately answered, and people are being deprived of their private property rights.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for widening the money resolution so that we can have this debate tonight, but I should be grateful if he would clarify a few points. First, what will be the date of valuation? It seems that the market was distorted immediately after his announcement to the House that these guns would be banned, so the valuations have been reduced.
Secondly, what will be the basis for the valuations? I understand that a list of various categories of weapons will be negotiated with the major gunsmiths in this country. Again, that is an unsatisfactory way to come up with a basis of valuation, because, critically, the value of a gun depends on its age and the amount that it has been used. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, a gun that is taken out of a gunsmith's is immediately devalued by between a quarter and a third.
Thirdly, who will carry out the valuation? It needs a considerable expert to value a gun. One cannot just pick up a pistol and work out how much it has been used, unless one is a considerable expert.
Fourthly, who will judge the valuation appeals? If 160,000 guns are to be taken out of circulation, a considerable number of cases will go to appeal. Again, the people in charge of the appeal, who are making the awards, need to be—

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I have hardly any time left.
The people in charge of the appeal need to be great experts in this subject.
Fifthly, how long will people have to wait for their compensation? If people's private property rights are being taken away, they should be paid compensation rapidly.
A number of people have obtained firearms certificates for high-calibre pistols on the basis that these firearms will be kept in secure premises in a gun club. Therefore, a number of people have voluntarily got together to form a gun club and spent considerable sums on those premises, and on the security arrangements of those gun clubs.
It would be iniquitous if individuals received compensation for their steel cabinets in a private home but not for the more sophisticated arrangements that the police will require of a gun club—an armoury, burglar alarms and so on—before the club obtains a licence for the premises, and in order that people can get firearms certificates to keep their guns on those premises.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give me some assurance on those points.

7 pm

Mr. Henderson: We on the Opposition Front Bench support the principle of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and his colleagues. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) that we shall deal with the potential disposal of weapons abroad later in the debate, so I do not propose to deal with it at the moment.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) alleged that there was a coalition of Front-Bench speakers against Parliament. I understand where he comes from on that, but he is not right, because we on the Opposition Front Bench do not agree with the Government on a major issue in the Bill—whether .22 pistols should be retained. If they are retained, it will endanger our agreed objective, which is to provide proper protection for the public. There is a major difference between the Front Benches on that.
The Opposition and the Government agree that people want action on the excessive use of guns and their danger to the public. The House will completely abdicate its responsibilities if it does not face that issue quickly. That is why the Opposition agreed to co-operate with the Government on timetabling, but not on every part of the Bill.
The debate has not half brought people out of their burrows. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have clearly shown where they come from. I mentioned the accusation by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about a Front-Bench coalition. Opposition by Conservative Members is not entirely from the Back Benches: it could accurately be described as being led by ex-Front-Bench Members who now disagree with the Government.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said that the Bill was very un-Tory because it did not protect private property. We are all obliged to protect private property—that is part of democracy—but we also have an obligation to protect people, and I did not hear the hon. Gentleman or those colleagues who supported his case speaking about that. Protecting people should be our main responsibility, and that is the issue that we should tackle.

Sir Patrick Cormack: At any time before Dunblane, did the hon. Gentleman receive any objections from anyone in his party about target shooting as a legitimate sport? Can he refer to any pronouncement by any Labour politician at any time against it?

Mr. Henderson: Many people—not only members of the Labour party and lobby organisations, but people in my constituency—have asked me, "What do you intend to do about guns? People on our street have guns. Can you do something about that?" After an incident such as that at Dunblane, in which the lawlessness emanates from an activity that is currently lawful, people rightly say to Parliament, "What will you do to prevent that outrage, that horror, happening again?"
The specific issue that we are debating is compensation. Can the Home Secretary give examples of what he would define as "ancillary equipment", which is referred to in his amendments?

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: I should like to proceed with my speech.
A definition of ancillary equipment would help the House. The debate is about where one draws the line on compensation. There is a clear distinction between nationalisation and confiscation on the one hand, and loss of business income, or even personal income, on the other. In terms of state action, one must distinguish between those two. If we accept that anyone who loses in any way from a decision in Parliament has a right to compensation, the list of persons and organisations applying for it will be limitless.
Everything we do affects somebody in some way. Signing up to the Maastricht treaty means that some people will say, "I am affected now and I will be affected in future." When we pass labour laws, some people will say that they are affected, and when we pass laws on health, some will say, "My business and my job are affected." The list is endless, and we would find it impossible to make any definitions. Parliament has said that compensation is automatic for nationalisation or confiscation in wartime, or when someone's home is demolished because of a road. There may be arguments about the amounts, but the principle is automatic.
The great danger with compensation for loss of business is that everyone will claim it. Furniture manufacturers who have to meet new safety requirements could say, "My business had to change and I had to invest in new equipment and diversify. I should get full compensation." There would be no claims in respect of the people who work for such manufacturers, but that is another matter.
Drug companies invest colossal amounts up front, thank goodness. In the light of scientific evidence, the House has to decide what is safe for the public, and sometimes drugs on which the companies have spent a great deal of money are no longer safe and have to be withdrawn. I cannot recall any substantial compensation to drug manufacturers.
The House has been passing building regulations and mine safety regulations for the best part of 150 years, but it has never been the policy of any Government to say that, if a business requires change or investment to meet new conditions, it will be entitled to full compensation. When building and fire safety regulations were rightly changed, there was no question of compensating every business that had to change as a result.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: No, because I am time-limited.
I recognise that dealers and others will face a loss of business. That is unfortunate, but they are no different from businesses which in the past had to modify their operations because of parliamentary decisions.

Mr. James Couchman: The hon. Gentleman will recall that we had a similar debate


in Committee on compensation. The businesses that we are discussing cannot change: they will be extinguished. The hon. Gentleman spoke about a road going through a house. If a road goes through a business, it is compensated. There is a difference between changing for the future in accordance with parliamentary regulations and being extinguished.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is not making a new point. Many businesses, such as the de-boners in the meat industry and companies involved in meat distribution, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) referred, have gone bust. Small sub-contractors to drug companies often go out of business because their expertise is linked to the manufacture of a drug that has been withdrawn. There are many examples of companies going out of business. I understand the difficulty of the companies that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), but they are no different from other companies, and they are able to diversify.
I am no expert on guns or gun dealing—parliamentarians cannot be experts on everything—but I looked at some dealers' premises recently, and I noticed that some of them sell not only pistols but shotguns, rifles, fishing equipment and even England football strips. Therefore, not every dealer will go bust. There will be a change in their circumstances, but they must recognise the weight of public opinion to which the Government and Opposition have responded. People are saying, "Something must happen." We must take action to protect the public, and that action has consequences. People who have to hand in their guns, whether they are dealers or individuals, should receive adequate compensation.
It would be helpful if the Home Secretary would tell us what will be the sequence of events. The Opposition tabled amendment No. 13, which asks the Government to return to the House with the principles of a compensation scheme, so that we can debate them, and further debate some of the arguments that have been made today.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I will not give way.
The Government were reluctant to present such principles during proceedings on the Bill in Committee. The Government should realise that there is much confusion on matters such as what values will be set. who will set them, what an individual who disagrees with a valuation should do, and whether there will be a right of appeal. Many questions must be answered.
It is important to ban the use of pistols to the greatest possible extent—although we differ on that—so legislation must be passed quickly. That is why the Opposition have co-operated on procedural matters. But many issues remain unresolved. There are issues linked to airguns that must be settled. The Government should have been bound by the legislation to make further proposals.
On compensation, a wise path forward, perhaps in another place, would be for the Government to provide further information on general principles of compensation, although the details might be set out in secondary legislation. If the Home Secretary can accomplish that, he

will assure many hon. Members on both sides of the House that a satisfactory and reasonable approach has been found to deal with the matter.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken with force and with passion in this debate, and I understand and acknowledge the depth of their concerns. I shall do my best to reply to as many points as I can in what must now inevitably be a short speech, and I will endeavour to write to those whose points I fail to deal with in the next few minutes.
On 18 November we tabled a new money resolution to the Bill so as to allow hon. Members to table amendments and to debate the matter of compensation without a technical limit being imposed on the scope of those amendments and of that debate. I said then that the Government would listen to all the arguments before deciding on the scope of a compensation scheme. In a moment, I will explain our conclusions on that. Before doing so, however, I should like to deal with the substance of the amendments tabled and eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin).
As my hon. Friend knows, in discussing these matters I have always made it clear that a distinction must be made between paying compensation for guns and accessories and the question of wider business losses. As I said on Second Reading, so far as I am aware there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occur as a result of Government legislation, and I made it clear then that I could not give my hon. Friends comfort on that score. I fear that nothing that I have heard today has led me to alter that view.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) that the issue is not whether compensation should be paid. The Government are not presenting to Parliament a Bill which does not offer compensation. The difficult issue is determining where one draws the line—the point at which one either says, "This is a case in which, on all precedent, one must and should pay compensation", or, "However sympathetic one might be to those who will suffer loss in consequence of the legislation, on all precedent and on a proper analysis of the case, it does not justify compensation."
I think that the distinction between the two categories is clear. If the effect of Government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. That principle has been a part of English law for many years in relation to land and buildings which are, for example, the subject of compulsory purchase orders.

Sir Terence Higgins: rose—

Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I should like to make some progress in my explanation, and time is short.
Observance of the principle also arises from our obligations under the European convention on human rights. Of course we recognise that there are businesses


which will have stocks of guns that they will no longer be able to hold legally, and of equipment that is intended only for use with such guns. Their position is analogous to that of an individual who owns such equipment, and we accept that they should receive compensation for the objects that they hold which become unlawful or unable to be sold. However, those are very different issues from paying compensation for business losses or losses associated with the operation of a club.
7.15 pm
All businesses operate within a framework of legislation. In the case of the gun industry, the framework is stricter and more specific than in many other industries. It regulates what types of guns and ammunition can be bought and sold and who may buy and sell them. It is right that there is a strong framework to control the market in a product which is, potentially, extremely dangerous. Moreover, that framework of regulation has existed since the 1920s, and everyone who works in the firearms industry operates within it.
Major changes have been made in that regulatory environment on a number of occasions in recent history, and the changes have had a massive impact both on the shooting industry and on those who use guns for leisure purposes. In 1920, firearms controls were introduced for the first time; in 1934, fully automatic weapons were prohibited; in 1962, airguns and shotguns were made subject to restriction for the first time; in 1988, semi-automatic and self-loading rifles were prohibited; and in 1992 disguised firearms were prohibited. There have been many other minor changes which have affected the operations of gun dealers and gun clubs. All those changes were introduced to improve public safety, and some of them will have affected some businesses more than others. However, no one who works in the firearms industry can be unaware of the significance of regulatory controls on that industry.
It is one of the overriding duties of a Government to protect the safety of the public. The decisions that the Government have had to take on this extremely difficult and vexed matter were not different in principle from many other decisions that Governments are occasionally bound to take which may cause damage to the prospects of the industries associated with them. There have been many occasions on which the Government have felt it necessary to ban a particular product or to restrict access to it.
A recent example was the Government's decision in 1989 to ban the chewing tobacco product called "Skoal Bandits", which had begun to be marketed in this country. It was considered to be so potentially damaging to health that the Government banned it. The company concerned suffered a considerable loss, and it even challenged the Government in the courts. No compensation was paid, and the courts supported the Government on that decision.
Over the years, in the interests of public safety, many regulations have been introduced in the transport industry. Those measures have imposed very substantial additional costs on the haulage industry and have no doubt put some hauliers out of business. One sympathises with people who had to suffer those consequences, but no compensation was paid.
Occasionally various medicines or other chemical products, such as insecticides, have to be banned when information comes to light about their side effects. Major

changes in regulations are occasionally made in order to control pollution. The Government have never paid compensation in those circumstances.
To provide an even more controversial example, only three weeks ago the House debated the cattle head de-boning industry, which has effectively been destroyed by the ban introduced in March this year on sales of head meat from cows. The ban was introduced because of the risk posed by head meat in relation to BSE. The Government were bound to act to preserve public safety and no compensation has been paid for the losses suffered by cattle head deboners.
The Government have a fundamental obligation to protect public safety. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if, on every occasion that a decision had to be made, the Government were obliged to pay compensation for the business losses that resulted. My right hon. and hon. Friends are well aware that Government compensation means other taxpayers being required to pay for the business losses of those affected by the aftermath of Dunblane. Much as I regret the difficulties that gun clubs and firearms dealers are facing, I do not believe that it is right to ask for such compensation.

Sir Patrick Cormack: What is the logic of compensating the renderers but not compensating others? What is the logic of not compensating the gun maker, who will be driven out of business—all his assets, his house and everything else will go—but readily agreeing that it is entirely proper to compensate owners?

Mr. Howard: I have sought to explain why we do not think it right to compensate gun makers. Renderers were paid compensation to preserve a vital link in the food industry chain. The industry could not have survived if the renderers had all gone out of business. That is why a decision was taken to pay them compensation.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I have only five minutes more because it is right that I should give my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, who moved the new clause, time to reply. I also want to deal with some of the other points that have been raised in the debate.
Amendment No. 66 would provide a form of independent financial arbitration on the valuation for compensation to be paid for those items for which we are intending to pay compensation. That important matter was raised by several right hon. and hon. Members and I should like to explain how we intend to approach the issue of compensation.
I intend to draw up a list of approximate values for different makes of gun, which I shall discuss with the British Shooting Sports Council. Gun owners will have a choice. They will be able to accept a flat-rate payment, or a value based on the list drawn up with the British Shooting Sports Council. If gun owners challenge our valuations of guns that they claim have special features making them more valuable than the norm, they will be able to provide their own valuations and the Government


will seek an independent valuation when agreement with a gun owner cannot be reached. A similar approach will be taken on accessories.
Those arrangements will be included in the scheme that the Government will make for compensation. Amendment 13 would make that scheme subject to parliamentary oversight. I am content that that should be done. I am happy to give a commitment that there will be access to independent valuations and that the details of the compensation scheme will be subject to parliamentary approval. We shall table an amendment to achieve that effect in another place. On that basis, I invite the hon. Members who have tabled amendments Nos. 66 and 13 not to press them.
Before I sit down, I should like to say a word about the amendments tabled in my name. Amendment No. 73 to clause 11 provides for compensation to be paid to owners who surrender expanding ammunition, which clause 25 will make it unlawful for them to possess. I hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will forgive me if I do not go through a complicated explanation now. His concern that ammunition might be excluded from the compensation arrangements was misplaced. A proper analysis of the amendments shows that ammunition will be compensated for.
Subsection 2(a), to be introduced by amendment No. 73, clarifies the qualifying period for the possession of surrendered prohibited firearms and ammunition with the phrase:
on or immediately before 16th October".
That is the answer to the first of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who rightly pointed out that, if the valuation date was after my announcement, the market would be false and compensation would not be given at market value, as we intend. That is the practice that we followed in the 1988 scheme. The amendment makes it clear that the qualifying period must be in the days, or perhaps the week, before the date of my statement. The current wording of clause 11 is ambiguous and the amendment is an improvement.
Subsection (3), to be introduced by amendment No. 73, provides that a surrender and compensation scheme for guns and expanding ammunition can specify a period after which new claims for compensation will not be entertained, making different arrangements for different categories of claimant. The scheme for dealers, for example, may differ from that for individuals.
Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 are to schedule 1, which deals with the transitional arrangements for .22 pistols, which have to be kept in secure gun clubs. The amendments give the Home Secretary power to make payments on an ex gratia basis to owners of such guns—that is .22 calibre guns, not the guns that we are declaring unlawful—who hand them to the police and who are unable or unwilling to find a licensed gun club in which to keep them. Although such individuals are not being deprived of their property in the full legal sense, we accept that the provisions for .22 handguns will make it very difficult for some .22 shooters to continue to shoot on the same basis as before. We therefore accept that it is right that they should receive payments for their guns at market value. The arrangements to be made under the scheme will achieve that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) drew my attention to the important issue of timing. I entirely understand and accept his point. I assure him and those who are similarly concerned that we shall take their considerations carefully into account when drawing up the scheme to deal with timing.
I believe that the Government amendments go a considerable way—although not, I regret to have to concede, all the way—to meeting the legitimate worries expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. In doing so, we have significantly increased the level of compensation to be paid to individual certificate holders and to firearms dealers.

Mr. Harris: My right hon. and learned Friend has not dealt with the position of individual gun clubs, particularly non-profit-making clubs. Many of them will be driven out. What can we do to help them?

Mr. Howard: For the reasons that I have sought to explain, I fear that I cannot offer my hon. Friend comfort on that. Many such clubs may be able to put in place the arrangements necessary to continue to operate, although I accept that many of them will not. However, for the reasons that I have sought to explain, it would be a complete departure from precedent to compensate such clubs.
Taken overall, I believe that this is a fair package. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. and learned Friend's statements on valuations are welcome. The British Shooting Sports Council will certainly co-operate to make a workable scheme.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend takes comfort from the fact that, in a two-and-a-half-hour debate, his principal support has come from the Opposition Front Bench and from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I also detected from a short intervention that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is unlikely to support the new clause. Every other Member who contributed to the debate opposed the Government and supported the new clause. A high moral tone was adopted in an excellent debate.
I shall not detain the House. My right hon. and learned Friend has just said that it is the duty of the Government to obtain safety for the public. It is the duty of the House to protect the individual from theft by the state under the guise of law.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 299.

Division No. 25]
align="right">[7.28 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Biffen, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Austin-Walker, John
Boyson, Sir Rhodes


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Barnes, Harry
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beggs, Roy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beith, A J
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)


Benn, Tony
Chidgey, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Churchill, Mr

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

COTERMINOUS PISTOL CLUB LICENCES AND RIFLE CLUB APPROVALS

'. After section 15 of the 1988 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Coterminous pistol club licences and rifle club approvals
15A.—(1) Where an application is made on behalf of a club which is an approved rifle club for the grant or renewal of a pistol club licence, the officer of the club making the application may also apply for the club's approval to be withdrawn and replaced by a new approval taking effect on the same day as that on which the licence is granted or renewed.
(2) Where an application is made on behalf of a club which has a pistol club licence for the grant or renewal of approval as a rifle club, that approval may, if the club so requests, be granted or renewed for such period less than six years as will secure that it expires at the same time as the licence.
(3) The fee payable on the grant or renewal of an approval which—


(a) takes effect, whether by virtue of subsection (1) above or otherwise, at the same time as a pistol club licence granted or renewed in respect of that club, or
(b) is granted or renewed by virtue of subsection (2) above for a period less than six years,

shall be £21 instead of that specified in section 15(6) above.
This subsection shall be included in the provisions that may be amended by an order under section 43 of the principal Act.
(4) In this section "pistol club licence" means a licence under section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1996." '—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 96, 97, 112 and 113.
Amendment No. 57, in clause 14, page 7, line 4, after 'club', insert
'or a qualified range conducting officer'.
Government amendments Nos. 114, 87, 88, 98, 99, 89 and 104.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall deal first with amendment No. 57 tabled by my hon. Friends, which I urge the House to resist. [Interruption.] I cannot support the amendment, which is unnecessary.
Clause 14(1) allows the responsible officer of a licensed pistol club to have in his possession the small-calibre pistols belonging to the members of that club without holding a separate firearm certificate for them. The amendment would extend that exemption to any qualified range conducting officer, but clause 14(2) already allows other officers or members of a licensed pistol club to enjoy the same exemption from the certification requirement as the responsible officer if the chief officer of police for the area in which the premises are situated has given his written permission for them to do so.
That ensures that unrestricted access to small-calibre pistols at a licensed club is limited to the responsible officer or other persons who have been approved by the local chief police officer. We believe that is right to ensure that the safety of the public is safeguarded. We are not suggesting that range officers are not responsible people, but we believe that unrestricted access to pistols must be tightly controlled.
New clause 6 and amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89 have been tabled in response to an undertaking that I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) in relation to licensed pistol clubs and approved rifle clubs. The amendments will improve the administrative procedures for dealing with the granting of licences and approvals for gun clubs.
New clause 6 provides for a lesser fee of £21 for grant or renewal of an approval for a rifle club when it is granted or renewed at the same time as a pistol club licence is granted to that club, or its pistol club licence is renewed, as the case may be. A lower fee is appropriate in those circumstances, because most of the


checking that has to be undertaken by the police before the pistol club licence is granted or renewed will usually also suffice for the purposes of a rifle club approval. As a general rule, I believe the fee should be one quarter of the full rifle club approval fee, which is currently £84. The reduced fee will apply only where grant or renewal of the licence and approval take place at the same time.
7.45 pm
New clause 6 will also allow joint clubs—where both pistol and rifle target shooting activities take place—to have their licence and their approval run from the same date. Again, that will benefit the police, and it will also assist club officials.
Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 will allow the licence for a pistol club to run for a maximum period of six years, the same period as that of a rifle club approval. I must make it clear, however, that the Secretary of State will retain the power to revoke his approval for a rifle club at any time before the expiry of that period and he will also have the power to revoke the licence of a pistol club. Allowing pistol club licences and rifle club approvals to run conterminously will ease the administrative burden on the police by allowing them to undertake checks on those premises from where both types of club will operate at the same time. I hope that it will also ease the burdens on the clubs.
Amendment No. 98 is a consequential technical amendment to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. It would require a description of the pistols stored at a licensed club to be entered in that club's register. The list of items contained at clause 21(2) would be expanded to cover this important particular. Under the present wording, the description of the pistols could be caught only by the general paragraph (e) and would have to be covered by separate regulations. That course could be avoided by means of this minor amendment, which also emphasises the importance of the register containing accurate descriptions of each pistol.
Amendment No. 99 clarifies the matters in respect of which entries in the pistol register have to be made within 24 hours—when the pistol is first stored al the premises, or its subsequent removal from or return to those premises. Amendment No. 113 is merely a drafting change, intended to improve on the language of the Bill and to add to clarity.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I apologise to my hon. Friend but, having spent a lifetime shooting, my hearing is not what it should be and there was also the noise of hon. Members departing. I think that she fully covered amendment No. 57, but I gather that she is not entirely enamoured of it. I hope that she will consider the practicalities of nominating an individual. I may have misunderstood her—I shall study her words with care—but I hope that she will be sympathetic to the practical problems of a small club, where, if someone were ill, a whole day could be wiped out. We are not asking for much, and I shall study my hon. Friend's remarks in the morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

EXTENSION OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1968 TO PROHIBIT SMALL FIREARMS IN SCOTLAND

'.—(I) The 1968 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 5A there shall be inserted the following section—
"Prohibition of small firearms in Scotland
5B.—(l) A person commits an offence if, without the authority of the Defence Council, he has in his possession while in Scotland, or purchases or acquires in Scotland, or manufactures, sells or transfers in Scotland, any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, other than an air weapon to which section I of this Act does not apply, a muzzle —loading gun or firearm designed as a signalling apparatus.

(2)For the purposes of this section, any detachable, folding, retractable or other movable butt —stock shall be disregarded in measuring the length of any firearm.
(3) For the purposes of this section a muzzle-loading gun is a gun which is designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile).".

(4) In Part I of Schedule 6 (prosecution and punishment of offences), after the entry for section 5(6) there shall be inserted the following entry—


"Section 5B(1).
Having, etc. a small firearm in Scotland.
(a) Summary
6 months or a fine of the statutory maximum; or both
—




(b) On indictment
5 years or a fine; or both.".'.
—

—[Mr. Salmond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Salmond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
'(10) The provisions of subsection (1)(aba) apply only to England and Wales.'.
No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, after '5', insert
'or by virtue of section 5B'.
No. 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, after '5', insert
'or by virtue of section 5B'.
No. 9, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, after '5', insert
'or by virtue of section 5B'.
No. 10, in clause 5, page 2, line 42, after '5', insert 'or by virtue of section 5B'.
No. 16, in clause 13, page 6, line 27, at end insert 'and
(d) the premises are outside Scotland.'.
No. 17, in clause 15, page 7, line 18, after 'premises', insert 'outside Scotland'.
No. 11, in clause 40, page 19, line 33, at end add—
'(6) Part II of this Act extends to England and Wales only.'.

Mr. Salmond: New clause 1 is in the name of a variety of hon. Members. Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 are


consequential to new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 11 seek to do the same thing as new clause 1 from a slightly different—perhaps more direct—approach.
Hon. Members will see that new clause 1 is supported by what can best be described as a rainbow coalition of Members. From the list of sponsors of the amendment, it appears that there are probably three reasons why hon. Members have put their name to it.
The hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I have all argued strongly for a handgun ban, and will seek each and every opportunity to argue that case. The support of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, for the new clause is motivated by the fact that they see the opportunity for Scotland to lead the way for England and Wales if it is successful.
The hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) do not agree with the objective of banning handguns, but none the less believe that the Scottish will is most decided on the matter, and that Scotland should decide for itself rather than having something imposed from elsewhere. I welcome the support of all those hon. Members for amendments that are important in terms of both principle and the direction that they take.
I shall examine the idea of leading by example and the idea of letting Scotland decide on this matter, above all matters, in the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre. First, however, I shall talk about practicality.
Some hon. Members have said both here and outside the House that it would not be possible to implement a total handgun ban in Scotland if one did not exist in England and Wales. I think that it was the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who said on "Question Time" that he could foresee someone going from Scotland to buy a handgun from a registered dealer south of the border and taking it back into Scotland because, as he put it, there are no border controls.
That betrays a total lack of understanding of the nature of the legislation. As we understand it, under the Bill it would not be possible to transport handguns except under strictly supervised conditions. The only handguns allowed—the .22 calibre weapons—would be in licensed pistol clubs in secure conditions.
As a result of the new clause, there would be no licensed pistol clubs in Scotland, so I would argue strongly that not only is it totally practical to have a total ban in Scotland, but such a situation would be easier to police and more practical than the legislation that would apply to England and Wales.
When .22 calibre weapons are transported, there are bound to be circumstances in which doubt arises. That is one of the weaknesses in the legislation. There will be doubt about whether the various mechanisms and protections surrounding transportation have been properly respected.
In Scotland, the position would be black and white. No civilian handguns would be legal and there would be no transporting of handguns. That position would be more effective and easier to police. The argument that a ban in

one part of the United Kingdom but not in others would not be practical without border controls or an independent Scotland is false.
After all, the Bill is not United Kingdom legislation; it does not cover Northern Ireland, which has different regulations and rules on handguns now. Few hon. Members would seriously argue that we could impose legislation willy-nilly on Northern Ireland without taking account of the issue of personal security, which is so important in the Province—and that applies equally to those of us who argue that handguns should be banned. It is therefore possible and practical to have a handgun ban in Scotland.
I shall now explain the two main arguments behind the new clause. The idea of leading by example has attracted support among hon. Members from both England and Wales. As I have said in previous debates, I believe that elements in the Bill are a messy compromise between the ambitions, aims and objectives of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was looking for a total ban on handguns, and the resistance of the Home Secretary, who did not share that position.
The Government have been left with a messy compromise that isolates .22 calibre weapons, saying that they can somehow be rendered safe, while higher-calibre weapons must be banned. That distinction has fallen apart, faced with the arguments advanced against it.
If the Government are confident of their position, why will they not allow a total ban in Scotland, while enacting their present proposals for legislation in England and Wales, and then compare the two and see which system is more accepted and can be better enforced? I think that the ban in Scotland would quickly lead the way to introducing different legislation in England and Wales.
My second argument is that we should let the Scottish people decide on the issue. My view, which I know many other Scottish Members share, is that among the Scottish population there is a settled will in favour of a handgun ban.
It is often said during debates on the Bill, especially by those who are upset or worried about it, and who think that it is spatchcocked, rushed legislation, that it has been carried forward on a tide of emotionalism, and that those of us who argue for a handgun ban are reacting to an emotional argument.
I do not believe that that is the position that has been reached in Scotland. Certainly there is understandable emotion in the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre, but we have moved well beyond that point in arguing the case through. There is a settled opinion in Scotland that a total ban on the civilian use of handguns is the most effective response to the tragedy at Dunblane.
When we debated the matter two weeks ago, on a free vote, 56 of the 72 Scottish Members argued and voted for a handgun ban. I believe that that reflected the overwhelming majority view among the Scottish population, which has been revealed in many ways. The House should find it in its heart to allow Scotland to decide on the issue—to respect the wishes of the Scottish people and accept the new clause.
It has been said to me over the past few days that I have tabled a nationalist new clause, which could be supported only by someone who believed in an independent Scotland. I do not believe that that is true.
The incorporating unionist tendency, as represented by the Government, has recently been making an enormous play of saying that Scotland can play a distinctive part within an incorporating Union. I cannot see much concrete evidence for that idea—except perhaps the odd stone here and there. It is a difficult argument to sustain, but those who support that position should be prepared to allow a distinctive judgment and response in Scotland to art event such as the tragedy of Dunblane.
I understand that such legislation would be covered by the devolutionist proposals, too. With devolution, legislation different from that approved by the Westminster Parliament here in London could well emerge from the Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh; so it is possible to support the distinction from a devolutionist point of view.
From a pro-independence position, too, I think that it is important for the Scottish people to determine something that is vitally linked to our social life and to how we react to tragedies.
The issue has brought together people from all political parties and from none. One of the experiences that I am sure we have all shared in responding to the Snowdrop campaigners is the realisation that people from outwith politics have played such a magnificent role in arguing the case. It involved many talented people who had found themselves for one reason or another outside the political process, or who did not feel that they should engage in party political debate.
The issue has brought together opinion in Scotland within parties, too. As some hon. Members will know, I am from West Lothian. I come from Linlithgow, so I am a "Lithca lad", a "black bitch". That may confirm some hon. Members' opinions—although I must tell the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that the description applies to both sexes. We are very forward-looking about such things in Lithca.
In West Lothian, politics is pretty rough at local level. There are endless arguments between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. Indeed, in the council group there are endless arguments within both parties, too. Yet, on the issue of banning handguns, both parties on the council united within and between themselves to say, "We do not want handguns in the West Lothian community." I venture to suggest that an issue that can unite the Labour and Scottish National party council groups in West Lothian has truly united the vast majority of Scottish opinion. The new clause asks the House of Commons to respect that opinion in Scotland. It is practical, it is possible and it is the right thing to do. I ask hon. Members to give it their support.

8 pm

Mr. George Robertson: May I speak early in what might be a short debate to make clear the position of the Opposition Front Bench? Tonight—as on 18 November—Labour Members will have a free vote, but it is important to make our position clear. I say up front that I am advising my colleagues not to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and I shall try to tell the House why.
I do not know whether it is necessary for me to do so, but I will repeat that my personal position—as well as that of my party—is very firmly in favour of a complete

ban on handguns. We have dealt with this on a number of occasions, and no one should mistake the strength of feeling that I hold on this issue. My difference of opinion with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and those who support the amendment is not with the substantive issue, but with the implementation of their proposal.
The first and most important reason for not supporting the amendment is that it will not be passed. I have stood at this Dispatch Box for 17 years and articulated cases strongly, often in the sure and certain knowledge that we were not going to win. However, that in itself is not the argument. People outside this House who do not understand what goes on here and who have a strong sense of emotion and passion on this subject are likely to have their hopes raised, only to see them dashed.
The argument may be that, if every Opposition Member were here, we could defeat the Government this evening; but, on 18 November—on a free vote, but with a huge attendance by Members from all parties—the Government's position was endorsed by a majority of 25. For us to reverse that, we must assume that all the Ulster Unionist Members who voted as they did that night would change sides.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has attracted the support of the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I do not know whether those two Members will be here to vote at the end of this debate, but they were only two of those who voted with the Government on 18 November. There is no certainty that they would vote the opposite way were they here tonight.
In any case, their votes will not be sufficient to change the result. Four brave Conservative Members defied the three-line Whip on 18 November to vote for a complete ban. It is unlikely that they will vote for the amendment this evening, and there is no indication that they will.
In the circumstances, there is no prospect of the amendment being passed. It would be unfair and hurtful if people outside this House were led to believe that a set of circumstances existed in the House that might have led to a complete handgun ban in Scotland after we were unable to obtain one on the Floor of the House on 18 November.
As someone who is close to the people immediately involved in the campaign on the issue, I do not wish to be associated with something that might be seen as a gesture in the circumstances. I have spent some time today talking to a number of people who have campaigned with great distinction, and I have also spoken to some of the bereaved parents and explained the circumstances of this evening's vote. I was in Dunblane following the vote on 18 November, and I know the deep sense of disappointment that was felt by people who believed that the House of Commons would take a different decision.
I know how deeply and painfully people felt, and a number of senior pupils at Dunblane high school embarked upon a hunger strike, so deeply did they feel that the Parliament of this country had let them down. Therefore, whatever views I have on the issue, I have at the back of mind the feeling that these people should not be led to believe in something that cannot provide what they want.
After the vote of 18 November, this matter can only be resolved by a general election. I regret that bitterly, because we could have established on a free vote


throughout the House a position that would have resolved the issue without politics. However, the people will make their choice at a general election, and somehow we will resolve the issue in a more secure way than is possible at present.
The Labour party is committed to a complete ban on handguns. If we form the Government after the election, we will provide an early legislative opportunity for the House of Commons to vote and, on a free vote, we will recommend that a complete ban on handguns be implemented. We will close the loophole that allows 40,000 .22 pistols—at least half of them semi-automatic—to remain in legitimate private ownership.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and I have, remarkably, agreed on this issue up to now. That is not something that we do often, but when we do, it counts. I say this with great sadness, but to press the amendment to a vote tonight—I hope he will not do so—will inevitably mean that there will be a bigger majority against this partial and geographical ban than there was on 18 November.
As the Bill moves from this House to another place—where it is clear the friends of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) will give it a lot of attention—that is the wrong signal to give. The feeling in the House and in the country remains strongly in favour of a complete handgun ban, and we should not give false comfort to those in the other House who might choose to take a different position. As we will support the Bill in the other House, I hope that there will be no dilution of what the Government have proposed. We will support the Bill on Third Reading, although it retains a key inadequacy, in our view.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says, "Let the Scots make the decision." He quoted the figures—56 out of 72 Scottish Members voted for a complete ban. We do not need another vote to tell the world that the majority of Scottish Members are in favour of a handgun ban. That is only worth doing if it is going to change the situation, and, frankly, it will not. We do not need another defeat to underline the fact that a majority of Scottish Members are in favour of a complete ban, or that we will work towards achieving that in the near future. Such a defeat will take us no further, and I am only interested—especially in this area of policy—in doing things that advance the cause. I rarely wish to get involved in things that do not.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that this was practical and possible. I have dealt with the possible element, but now I shall refer to the practicality of his argument. He says that .22 pistols in England will be securely held in clubs under the regulations laid down in the legislation, and that they can only be transported from club to club under independent and secure conditions.
Frankly, he is using the Home Secretary's argument. If what he is saying is right, we can have no objection to the partial ban. If the Home Secretary is right to say that there will be shooting only in registered clubs and that guns cannot get out because they can only be transported under special conditions, what is the objection to the Government's partial ban?

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: When I have finished this point.
The argument against a partial ban is that even the British Shooting Sports Council said that there would be circumstances in which people would be able to sign out their guns. The Government say that someone else would carry them on each occasion, but we are not persuaded by that. If guns can leak out of the system in England, they can leak into the system in Scotland. I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan appears to be accepting the Government's arguments to support his own.

Mr. Salmond: I was not accepting the Government's arguments but rebutting an argument made on "Question Time" by a Labour Front-Bencher, who said that, if there was a ban in Scotland, people could go south of the border to buy a gun and transport it back to Scotland. That is clearly not possible. Given that that argument was advanced by one of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues, he should not remind me of how that is not possible and tell me that it is a foolish argument.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to rebut arguments, but he has not rebutted them all. If he relies on the Government's rationale for a partial ban in Britain as a whole to reinforce his arguments for a total ban in Scotland, he must do better than to rebut something that was said on television in response to an audience question.
We argue against a partial ban because we are not convinced that it would be secure; we argue for a total ban because we believe that that is the only way to end the handgun culture and ensure that lethal pistols and handguns will not simply leak back into society.
The key point was the argument concerning leakages which was advanced by the British Shooting Sports Council at the Cullen inquiry. I am not the only one who is sceptical about the Home Secretary's assurances regarding transportation. The sport is extremely fragmented, there are 40,000 handguns, and a large number of shooters are involved in competitive shooting, so it is not sustainable to believe that Group 4 will be in charge of every transportation that takes place. The scepticism of the shooting lobby, in this case, is far more powerful than Government reassurances.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that his proposal is devolutionist. I am the champion of the cause of devolution, and the Scottish Parliament that we will create will have the power to deal with firearms legislation. That will be the time to consider such matters, not in the final stages of a Bill that we hope to make an Act of Parliament by the end of the year or shortly thereafter. At this time we cannot deal with the ramifications and side issues that are inevitably involved in having a ban in one part of the country and not another.
The issue can and should be dealt with, but all the factors must be taken into account. I say, therefore, with no anger or bitterness towards the hon. Gentleman, that he should think again. It is not right in any way to dilute or undermine the strong stance that has already been taken on a handgun ban. We should not offer any comfort or support to those in the House of Lords who in a few weeks' time will consider the Bill and who may try to do some mischief if they are given half an opportunity.
The message of hope for those who believe that they have found the way to prevent or at least minimise the risk of another Dunblane is strong, and the House should


not abandon or dilute it. We should be realistic in what we offer and practical in everything that we do. A decision that will lead to an inevitable defeat will raise hopes only to dash them among the people who least deserve such treatment.

Mr. Bill Walker: I oppose the new clause for several reasons. Anyone who had not taken an interest in the debate but had listened to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would say that he had never heard such a poor reason for voting or not voting. When the hon. Gentleman gets round to reading what he said—I shall certainly use it during the general election campaign—he will realise that he has said that there are times in Parliament when one can and should do things and times when one cannot and should not, and that it has nothing to do with beliefs, principles or anything of the sort.
At least the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has taken an honourable position from his party's point of view. The fact that I disagree with it does not mean that I do not recognise that his party wants a separate Scottish Parliament and a separate Scotland where separate decisions are made. I am totally opposed to that, but he is using this Parliament as it should be used by advancing proposals on matters about which he feels strongly. That is what Parliament is all about.
8.15 pm
I dispute the statements that have been made about the people of Scotland all being in favour of the ban. It is true that there are probably more people with gun licences in my constituency than in almost any other part of the United Kingdom, but none the less, the ratio of letters that I receive on the subject is 9:1 against a ban. It all depends on where one is in Scotland and to whom one is talking.
I believe that my constituents, like everyone else, have a right to have their opinions heard in the House.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Perhaps my learned Friend would care to know that in my constituency which, unlike his, does not have many shooters, the letters run in even greater numbers in favour of shooting and against, this ridiculous Bill.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that the pattern varies throughout the country, and it is important that we express the views and concerns of our constituents. Of course there are times when, on matters of principle, one has to say to one's constituents, "I'm sorry, but in this case I cannot support you." That has happened to me at various times and I have not always been flavour of the month; it is interesting to note, however, that attitudes change with the passage of time.
I believe that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was right to table the new clause and to speak in support of it, and he will be right to press it to a vote if he so wishes, because that is what Parliament is all about, but—Whips or no Whips—I shall certainly oppose it.

Mr. Galbraith: I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will not press the new clause to a vote and will reconsider his position. We should consider why the new clause is before us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said,

when the proposal for a total ban was voted on before, it was defeated by 25 votes, and there is therefore no prospect whatever of the new clause being added to the Bill tonight. We can only dilute our current position.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan made several suggestions as to why we should consider the new clause, one of which was that he wanted Scotland to be used for a pilot study, as the laboratory for handgun legislation and control. In other words, if the legislation were shown to be effective in Scotland it would be translated to England and Wales and, if not, it would be scrapped.
I am always worried about pilot studies in Scotland, because we tend to use them when it suits us. The poll tax was criticised as a pilot study that applied only to Scotland and that was given as the very reason why we should be against it; this is a pilot study, yet that is given as the very reason why we should favour it. We should be sceptical about such arguments, which we tend to use for our convenience.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also sought to suggest that it was the settled will of the Scots that we were somehow different, perhaps more vulnerable or more willing; I am not quite sure of the basis of his argument. However, it is not the case. Concern and vulnerability do not stop at national borders. It is therefore proper and correct that this Parliament should consider the matter UK-wide.
I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan does not think me ungenerous if I suggest that there is perhaps a political motive behind his amendments: to embarrass the Labour party. That is not new; he does it from time to time in the House, as he is entitled to.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that hon. Members from other Opposition parties never make political moves in the House?

Mr. Galbraith: I was saying that such methods are legitimate, but I think that they are inappropriate in respect of this Bill. The people of Scotland will not like us using the Bill for political purposes. The press releases are probably already winging their way to the local press in Scotland demanding that local Labour candidates or Members of Parliament explain their positions—the usual hoo-hah. I understand that that happens from time to time; but with this Bill and the concerns, emotions and lives of the people involved, it is inappropriate. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will think twice about whether he should pursue his amendments. We have the high ground and we should retain it. We should not in any way dilute it with a new clause that is only a political act to embarrass the Labour party.

Ms Cunningham: I want to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker). I was interested in his assessment of the contents of his constituency mailbag. I represent the neighbouring constituency, and I must advise him that the contents of my constituency mailbag suggested precisely


the opposite to his. Of course, it may be that people write because they know the views of their Member of Parliament.

Mr. Bill Walker: There are several factors involved, one of which the hon. Lady mentioned. She should also mention that more than 50 per cent. of her constituents live in the city of Perth; my constituency is largely rural.

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have a larger urban concentration than does he, although half my constituency is non-urban. I get the impression that my constituents overwhelmingly favour a total ban, but I have always accepted that people in my constituency who do not favour one may feel that writing to me would not necessarily result in the change of mind that they want.

Mr. George Robertson: I support the hon. Lady. The argument about mailbags is fatuous. The journals of the gun lobby suggest that it has organised a highly disciplined mailing to Members of Parliament. In contrast to those letters, many of which are hysterical, 750,000 people signed the Snowdrop petition in six months. That speaks volumes much more than an organised letter writing campaign ever will.

Ms Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that, because he must then accept that we have heard, in several different ways, the expressed will of the people of Scotland about the issue.
It cannot be contradicted that people in Scotland want the ban, which is why I find some of the comments of Labour Members astonishing. I do not think that I have heard more tortuous logic in my life than that of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). If the likelihood of losing a vote in the House was a reason for not putting something forward—and that was his lead reason—Opposition Members need never bother to visit the building. The point about Government majorities is that the Opposition are defeated frequently; only very occasionally do we win. The point of being in opposition is to express the view of a large number of people. In the case of Scotland, the Opposition express the view of the vast majority.

Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Cunningham: I have given way enough. I rose only to make a few comments.

Mr. Henderson: It is a brief point.

Ms Cunningham: Very well.

Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Lady confirm that her party was offered a position on the Standing Committee which it declined to take up?

Ms Cunningham: I fail to see what that has to do with the debate on this amendment. I am busy in the Committee considering the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Cunningham: No. I have given way sufficiently considering that I intended to speak for only a couple of minutes. I felt that I had to say something about the most tortuous logic that I have ever heard.
I am concerned that the careful comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton about the amendments' effect on appearances and on the petitioners verged on the patronising. The people involved in the campaign, the Snowdrop petitioners and the parents, have a good deal more savvy than what he said would lead us to suppose.
We are not talking about a pilot study for Scotland. Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. It has a separate criminal law. The last point of appeal for the criminal law in Scotland is in Scotland; appeals do not go south of the border. Our rules of evidence are different, especially in the criminal law. There are marked differences. Our proposal, in that sense, is perfectly practical and politically acceptable, given the existence of a separate jurisdiction, which, I assume, is not being attacked by Government or Opposition Members.
To describe a change to the criminal law in Scotland as a pilot study is a deliberate attempt to equate this with previous situations. I was interested when the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) spoke about the poll tax. The reason why there was so much opposition to that in Scotland was not that it was a pilot study but that people were against the poll tax.
People very much want the amendments. There is no reason why they should not be agreed tonight. There is a different criminal law in Scotland. We are suggesting a change that would make something a crime in Scotland which was not a crime in England and Wales. It is practicable and would function no differently from the way in which many other provisions function. I see no difficulty with it, but I can see some people twisting and turning to try to explain the inexplicable. That suggests that, because they did not think of it, they will not support it.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am attracted to support the new clause, because I think that it is unfortunate that it has turned into a bit of a party political football.
On 18 November, the most important amendment to the Bill, which would have made it a proper Bill by banning all handguns, including .22s, was resisted by the Government. They did everyone a disservice by whipping in their Members on that day. I was not one of the 56 people who did manage to turn out to vote for that amendment, because the Division Bell did not ring where I was that evening, nor did the policewoman call the Division there. I was not vigilant enough—rather, I put my trust in the House so much that I did not keep an eye on my watch and come to vote.
I have since been written to by a Conservative candidate who said there was a conspiracy by the Labour party on 18 November to allow the amendment to be defeated. I think that that suggestion comes not from the Government, but obviously from people who support them. If that conspiracy theory was correct, people would point to what is happening tonight and say that the conspiracy continues, because it seems that opposition to the Government's weakness not to ban all handguns has been further weakened by people falling out over a second bite at the same cherry. The new clause offers people the chance to say that, in Scotland, where the Dunblane massacre occurred, all handguns should be banned.
8.30 pm
The Serjeant at Arms, Mr. Peter Jennings, has apologised to me for the lapses on the night of 18 November. I believe that the Conservatives should apologise to anyone whom they tried to tell that there was a conspiracy to allow them to win victory. I was with the Dunblane parents the week before the vote on 18 November when they lobbied Labour Members who were not sympathetic to their case and members of the Ulster Unionist party who did not sympathise with their case and who said that they would vote with the Government. We knew before 18 November that we would be defeated, and defeated quite substantially. Those parents knew that by the end of the week.
It is wrong to say that, just because we would be defeated again tonight, we should not support the new clause. The defeat is the same in essence: the Government are not prepared to take proper action to prevent a further Dunblane or Hungerford.
During the Labour party conference I met a father who lost a daughter at Hungerford, not to a pump-action rifle but to a handgun. That weapon should have been banned after the massacre at Hungerford, but the Government buried their head in the sand and took inadequate action. I would support any move to ban all handguns, even the new clause, which is designed to cover Scotland alone, because it would put down a marker for the people who signed the Snowdrop petition in Scotland. It would put down a marker for the people I helped to raise signatures for that petition and for the people of Dunblane to whom I and other hon. Members have spoken. Some hon. Members know that I live with the consequences of Dunblane daily because of connections in my life. Those people want to see us do something, but we failed to do that on 18 November. We should take the opportunity to do so tonight.
It seems to me that we have lost our way. I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), as well as his technical knowledge of the House and about what might happen in another place. The written record of tonight will not read well because people outside who look into this place want to see if their overwhelmingly clear emotions have been reflected in the debates and votes held in the House. They are not interested in the technicalities and the wizardry of those who usually stitch up deals through the usual channels.
It has been said that, if we push the new clause to a vote, it will raise hopes that will then be dashed. What else is there if we take away the hope that we offer people that we can see clearly through the mud and the mire of the stitch-ups and the three-line Whips, the Government and party advantages in debates and votes in the House? We should see through clearly to what people want us to do—make society safer for them and their children.
Tonight's debate also shows clearly what the Opposition may be about—what we are about, I hope—when we talk about the powers of the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. I am not talking about a separate Parliament that Members of the Scottish National party want, but one that respects the House and works with it, but would give Scotland the right to legislate for just the kind of decision incorporated in the new clause. It may be that, despite Hungerford and Dunblane, Members representing England may not want a ban on all handguns, but the people of Scotland want it because of Hungerford

and Dunblane. Perhaps those people wanted that ban before Dunblane and would have had it if they had had the legislative power to do something different from the inadequate reaction of the Government after Hungerford.
I would have been much happier tonight if all the points of agreement had been stressed much more strongly. People might then have pleaded with the SNP Members not to press the new clause to a Division. In fact, those Members would also include my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who is one of the signatories to the new clause, and who is present. I commend him for sponsoring that new clause. We share a common district council area and I believe we share a common thought on this matter.
Tonight, I hope that we shall not end up with people sending out press releases, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) referred. I hope it will not be like that. I would be much happier if we were able to support the new clause vigorously. That would show that, when we have a Scottish Parliament, we shall have separate legislation. I have absolutely no doubt that, if such a Parliament existed now, such legislation would be different from that passed by the House. But then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton has said, after the general election, I hope that the majority will be provided by the Labour party. We shall then pass the legislation that we want for all the United Kingdom. In the meantime, I certainly intend to vote for the new clause if it is pressed to a Division.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I should like to make a brief contribution because I am one of the six principal sponsors of the new clause, which has been described by some people as a Scottish National party one. Credit must go to the leader of the SNP for taking the initiative in tabling the new clause, but the six principal sponsors also include the leader of Plaid Cymru, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party of Northern Ireland, a member of the Democratic Unionist party of Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who is a member of the Scottish Liberal Democrat party, and me. Very rarely would the six principal sponsors of a new clause come from different parties and different sides of the House.
I would prefer a complete ban on all handguns throughout the United Kingdom. That is what I voted for on a previous occasion, but unfortunately that amendment was defeated. A complete ban on handguns throughout Scotland would at least be a start towards achieving that objective throughout the United Kingdom. If such a ban were enacted in Scotland, I hope that, in the fulness of time, the rest of the United Kingdom might follow suit, although that would probably require a general election, which would change the composition of the House.
I understand that one of the arguments used against the new clause is that it would create practical difficulties. We are asked how we could have a complete ban in one part of the United Kingdom and an incomplete one in another part of it. I can understand the Tories putting forward that argument, but for the life of me I cannot understand why hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches who are committed to setting up a Scottish Parliament can swallow it.
Let us suppose a Scottish Parliament had been in existence in the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre. There is no doubt that that Scottish Parliament would have


passed legislation for a complete ban on all handguns throughout Scotland, whatever the practical difficulties posed by the border between Scotland and England. As I understand it, under the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which are supported by the Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Parliament would have the power to control firearms. I cannot accept the arguments about insurmountable practical difficulties.
The second argument that I have heard is that our case is unwinnable. They tell us that we will not win the vote, so we are wasting our time voting. I have been a Member of Parliament for 22 years, 17 of them in opposition. I have been travelling back and forth from Scotland down here every week. It is like walking on to the football field, knowing that we will be on the losing side before the ball has even been kicked, yet we still come down here and dutifully use our vote, because that is why our constituents sent us here. If we just sit here and abstain because we are not going to win, that is an affront to parliamentary democracy.
I see some Conservative Members nodding—perhaps they are being persuaded by my powers of argument. Perhaps even they might come into the Lobby with me tonight, or at least abstain and allow the representatives of the people of Scotland to vote and determine this important question without the votes of Members for constituencies south of the border. It is nonsense to say that we should not vote just because we have little, if any, chance of winning. The new clause gives the House the opportunity to express a view on a total ban on all handguns throughout Scotland.
Although I have carried out only informal soundings and have no absolute scientific evidence on which to come to a firm conclusion, I sense that the anti-gun feeling in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy is much stronger in Scotland than south of the border. The House has the opportunity tonight to respond to that feeling and to show that we recognise that, sometimes, the Scottish dimension to a problem and the solution demanded by the majority of the people of Scotland might be different from that south of the border.

Mr. Howard: The last thing I expected to find myself doing when I rose to reply to the debate on this new clause was agreeing with the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—although it is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) made exactly the same point.
This evening, we have heard the most bizarre speech from an Opposition Front Bencher that I have ever heard in my 13 years as a Member of this House. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) spent 75 per cent. of the time that he used for his speech explaining that he is not going to support the new clause because, if one votes for something knowing that one is not going to win, that is gesture politics and he is not interested in gesture politics.
What on earth has the hon. Gentleman been doing for the past 17 years? What has he been playing at? Why has he been coming to the House for the past 17 years? Why has he been voting? Why has he been speaking from that

Front Bench? Can we expect a decent period of silence on his part for the rest of this Parliament, or perhaps even his absence? He displayed the most extraordinary and grotesque attitude, and I thought it absolutely astonishing. The hon. Members for Perth and Kinross and for Falkirk, West made those points with appropriate eloquence, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside.
I, at least, am prepared to deal with the merits of the new clause, and I shall explain why I believe that the House should reject it.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) argues that there is in Scotland strong support for a complete ban on handguns and that that justifies making different laws north of the border, but I am not sure what, in practice, would be achieved by the new clause. I believe that the proposals in the Bill will make it virtually impossible for someone to remove a handgun illicitly from a gun club, so I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's new clause would, in practice, add to public safety in Scotland.
Let us suppose for a moment, however, that the Bill did not impose such stringent security arrangements upon handgun shooting in England and Wales—let us suppose that it was possible for someone to remove a gun from a club in England and Wales. Would the new clause make Scotland a safer place? Of course it would not. It would still be open to a pistol shooter from Scotland to join a club south of the border and illegally import his gun into Scotland.
We have to recognise that our two countries share an island, and we must be realistic about the extent to which laws about the possession of guns can differ between the two jurisdictions.

Mr. Salmond: The Home Secretary is saying that, if his Bill does not work, the new clause might not work—but this is a new clause to his Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways: either he thinks that his Bill will work, or he thinks that it will not.

Mr. Howard: I think that the Bill will work, and, if it works, the new clause will be of no significance for the reasons that I have given—but even if the Bill did not work, the new clause would be of no significance. That is my point.
I now want to make a more fundamental point. The House does not reach its decisions on the basis of petitions, public opinion polls or letter-writing campaigns, and nor do the Government. Competitive pistol shooting has a long history both north and south of the border. Target shooting with .22 calibre pistols has been a part of the Olympic games from the very earliest days of the modern Olympics.
The Government believe that, if they are able to provide a way of preserving some limited competitive target shooting while providing the high level of safety from the misuse of handguns that the public expects and deserves, they ought to do that. It is our duty to make that solution work, and I believe that it can be made to work without compromising public safety.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that those arguments are shared by a number of Scottish newspapers which have commented on our proposals. On 17 October—the day after my statement—the Dundee Courier said of our proposals:


They should be given the chance to work, thus permitting the continued existence—albeit rigorously controlled—of a long established Olympic sport.
On the same day, The Herald said:
The Government has, on this occasion, come down on the side of rationality and fairness. No Scot will despise reason and its role in our political life.
I do not accept, therefore, that public opinion in Scotland is anywhere near as monolithic as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
For the substantial reasons that I have given, and not for the extraordinarily bizarre concoction that we got from the hon. Member for Hamilton, I invite the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Salmond: I shall deal first the Home Secretary's points. The Courier and The Herald are excellent newspapers—indeed, I write for one of them—but their combined circulation does not equal the circulation of either of the leading tabloid newspapers in Scotland, The Sun and The Daily Record, both of which have argued strongly in favour of a handgun ban. We are not arguing that opinion in Scotland is monolithic—we are saying that opinion in Scotland is overwhelmingly in favour of a handgun ban.
The Home Secretary knows that. Among other comments in the Scottish newspapers in the past few months, there have been broad hints from Scottish Office sources—for example, those published in the Evening Express of 16 October—that the Secretary of State for Scotland is in favour of a handgun ban, but that this legislation was the best deal that he could get out of a Home Secretary who resisted that approach. If anything, the number of Scottish Members of Parliament who voted two weeks ago to ban handguns—56 Members of Parliament—is probably an underestimate of the balance of Scottish opinion on this issue that might be revealed in a free vote. If we are to believe the briefings from the Scottish Office, it may be that, in a free vote and were it not for his Cabinet responsibilities, the Scottish Secretary himself would follow his constituents' views and vote for a handgun ban.
At least the Home Secretary did not tell us that our new clause was in some way technically incompetent—that is usually the last refuge of Ministers. [Interruption.] I see that he is acknowledging that the new clause is technically correct. Although he probably did not mean to do so, in his speech he also acknowledged that, in terms of his interpretation of the Bill, the new clause would be practicable. He argued that it would be impracticable only if his own legislation does not work.
However, the Home Secretary has missed the major criticism of the legislation. The factor that motivated me more than any other to vote for the handgun ban was the gun lobby's argument that arsenals of guns would be created at gun clubs, which would be vulnerable to people of criminal or terrorist intent.
I concede that the new clause would not prevent a gun club in England being raided and illegal weapons being taken into Scotland—there are many illegal weapons in Scotland at present—but it would ensure that there were

fewer arsenals, because there would be no pistol clubs in Scotland, and it would ensure that fewer guns were legally in circulation. We believe, therefore, that it would make our society that bit safer.
The Home Secretary should consider all the arguments that have been made against his legislation before he picks and chooses which to acknowledge.
If Labour Front-Bench spokesmen care to read my opening speech, they will find—perhaps they were anticipating a different type of speech—that I did not make a series of political points against the Labour party. Instead, I explained the positive reasons why I believed that the House should find the new clause worthy of support.
I was told by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that I had said that Scotland should be a testing ground. What I actually said was that English and Welsh Members had supported the new clause because they could see a virtue and a value in Scotland leading the way. They believe, reasonably, that, if Scotland can implement a total handgun ban, the lesson will be followed south of the border.
The handgun ban is not comparable to the poll tax. The overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland opposed the poll tax. The overwhelming majority of the people in Scotland support a handgun ban—and not only in Scotland. [Interruption.] I disagree; two weeks ago, I was proud to go into the Lobby to vote for a handgun ban in Scotland, England and Wales. However, that option is not available to us tonight, because our procedure does not allow us to revisit that argument.

Mr. Donohoe: We do not have long to wait.

Mr. Salmond: It is convenient for people to say, "We shall take this issue to a general election." Of course I will enter the general election campaign with a manifesto commitment to a handgun ban, but, as the hon. Gentleman should know, the result of no general election is a given, and in any case, as Labour Front-Bench spokesmen appear to have committed themselves only to allowing a free vote, the matter may not be determined by an election. We should take every opportunity to express our point of view, and tonight is the current opportunity.
The hon. Member for Hamilton(Mr. Robertson) argued that people should not propose amendments that they believe that they will lose. That comment has been dealt with by several hon. Members. Last night, the Opposition voted for VAT on fuel at 5 per cent. instead of 8 per cent. We were not confident of winning the vote. Earlier tonight, I supported new clause 3, tabled by Labour Members, which proposed a licensing system for air rifles. I was proud and happy to support that new clause; I do not believe that we expected to win.
The one argument that I resented tonight was the argument that the clause would disappoint people in Dunblane, the relatives and the Snowdrop petitioners. They are not naive. I would not have tabled the new clause without consulting the relatives and the Snowdrop petitioners. The ones that I have spoken to all strongly support the new clause. I am even willing to name names, because they have said that I can if I need to, but I will not concede to an argument from anywhere that I am discounting their opinion.
I have been more affected by this issue than by any political issue since I became a Member of Parliament. I am not unique in that. I am sure that that has been the case for the hon. Member for Hamilton, the Secretary of State for Scotland and any right hon. or hon. Member with a heart. I have tried to approach it in a way that dignifies the argument that I am advancing.

Mr. George Robertson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Hamilton shakes his head. He and I have disagreed on many subjects, as he rightly said. We have come to verbal blows on many matters. On this issue, until now, there has been no difference between us.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton should have told the House that, before I tabled the new clause, with the rainbow coalition of support that it has tonight, I asked him if he wanted to be one of its lead signatories. If he had been prepared to take that opportunity, it would have been of no possible political advantage to the Scottish National party. If he is prepared to lead Labour Members into the Lobby, in the knowledge that some Members who voted against a similar proposal two weeks ago will not vote against it tonight—

Mr. Robertson: It is important that the House realises that the hon. Gentleman made that offer last Saturday, sitting in St. Giles's cathedral in Edinburgh. If there was a seriousness about getting the measure through the House, a seriousness about winning the Division, a seriousness about organising it, the time to start consulting people like me was much earlier than last Saturday.
I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's motives, and I hope that, because some of my colleagues may have expressed a certain view, he will not simply ascribe it to me; nor should he say that people involved in a community cannot speak one for another. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's motives at all. I am saying that, on a previous occasion, when much attention was paid to the matter and a great deal of lobbying was done, we did not succeed. We are in danger of raising false expectations, and dashing them, in people who would deeply resent it. If the hon. Gentleman had talked to me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye again, he may do so.

Mr. Salmond: I think the hon. Gentleman made a misjudgment when he did not the accept the offer to be one of the lead signatories to the new clause. We know that some hon. Members who, for one reason or another, voted against a similar proposal two weeks ago or were unable to vote for it then, have expressed support for the new clause. If the hon. Gentleman wants a good result tonight, all he must do is to lead his troops, by encouragement, into the right Lobby; then we shall get a result that will encourage Scotland. Perhaps he will then be in a position where no one will be able to take political advantage of him. The position is in the hon. Gentleman's hands.
I would say to all hon. Members that the new clause has been tabled by all its signatories because we believe that it is the right thing to do by the Scottish people. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it in their hearts to give us some support.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 202.

Division No.26]
[8.56 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Maclennan, Robert


Benn, Tony
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Connarty, Michael
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)
Rendel, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Salmond, Alex 



Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Wallace, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wigley, Dafydd


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kirkwood, Archy



Llwyd, Elfyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Dennis Canavan and


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mr. Andrew Welsh.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Ashby, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Faber, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, John
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fry, Sir Peter


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gamier, Edward


Bright, Sir Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Peter
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Browning, Mrs Angela
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorst, Sir John


Bums, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Coe, Sebastian
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Heseltine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Sir Robert


Couchman, James
Higgins, Sir Terence


Cran, James
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)


Day, Stephen
Horam, John


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howard, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, David (Guildf'd)






Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'dn S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Sir Roger


Knight Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


MacGregor, John
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madel, Sir David
Thomason, Roy


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Marland, Paul
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trotter, Neville


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
Viggers, Peter


Mills, lain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Waterson, Nigel


Moate, Sir Roger
Watts, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wells, Bowen


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Whittingdale, John


Moss, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Newton, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Willetts, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wilshire, David


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Cutaway, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Page, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James



Patnick, Sir Irvine
Tellers for the Noes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Gyles Brandreth and


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 1, line 15, leave out
'to which section 1 of this Act does not apply'.
No. 81, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
'(3A) In paragraph (ac) (self-loading and pump-action smooth-bore guns) after the word "not" there shall be inserted the words "an air weapon or".'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 2

SLAUGHTERING INSTRUMENTS

Amendments made: No. 90, in page 2, line 21, after 'have' insert 'the instrument'.

No. 91, in page 2, line 22, leave out 'a slaughtering instrument' and insert 'it' .—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 3

FIREARMS USED FOR HUMANE KILLING OF ANIMALS

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 2, line 29, after 'have' insert 'the firearm'.

No. 93, in page 2, line 30, leave out 'a firearm' and insert 'it' .—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 4

RACES AT ATHLETIC MEETINGS

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 2, line 38, after 'have' insert 'the firearm'.

No. 95, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'a firearm' and insert 'it' .—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 6

HAVING SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOL OUTSIDE PREMISES OF LICENSED PISTOL CLUB

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 3, line 18, at end insert 'or
(d) the slide assembly or cylinder has been removed and stored according to the conditions specified in subsection (2A) below.
(2A) Except as permitted by virtue of any provision of this Act, a small-calibre pistol shall be held under the following conditions —

(a) the slide assembly or cylinder shall be held on the premises of a licensed pistol club, and
(b) the remainder of the weapon shall he stored at different premises which shall be specified on the certificate granted for that pistol.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 84 to 86.
No. 62, in clause 12, page 6, line 13, after 'pistols', insert
'and such premises may include the premises of a registered firearms dealer which may be used for the purpose of storing small-calibre pistols;'.
No. 63, in clause 15, page 7, line 25, at end insert—
'(4A) In determining whether to grant a licence, the Secretary of State shall consider whether the requirements of this Part could be adequately met by proposals by the Club for the storage on its premises of parts of weapons belonging to members of the Club.'.
No. 64, in clause 40, page 19, line 28, at end insert—
'(3A) In determining which days to appoint, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to permit adequate time for licensed pistol clubs to make the necessary arrangements to conform with the provisions of the Act.'.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked me to add his name to the list of supporters of the amendments but, in all the excitement and in view of his many amendments on the Order Paper, I am afraid that I failed to do so. Nevertheless, I am glad that the amendments enjoy cross-party support.
The purpose of the amendments is to require guns to he stored in separate parts, so that the complete gun is not in the owner's hands except within the secure confines of the club. The amendment does not provide an alternative:


the two parts of the gun must be stored separately. The reason is that, if some guns were stored whole, we would immediately lose the benefits of reduced security arrangements—which would have to remain in place for the few guns that were not disassembled.
The effect of the amendment is to force the surrender of those guns that cannot be disassembled. The amendment does not challenge the distinction between .22 and other calibre weapons, and it retains the Government cut-off point. It does not challenge the separation of the complete gun from its owner when outside a licensed club, which is the core of the Government's security assumption.
Lord Cullen said that the option
which is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components".
That suggestion has several obvious advantages: it is quicker and easier to implement; it will save much expenditure, both to clubs and the Treasury, by way of compensation; and it will avoid the risk of terrorist attacks on arsenals of weapons. The recommendation continues to fulfil the Bill's central purpose: to separate the owner from his pistol or revolver, except within a club, as a safeguard against another amok killing.
The only objection raised against the proposal refers to its practicability. All firearms experts agree that the proposal is practicable, but the Government's response to Cullen says:
While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of gun, it is not a practical proposition for others".
Before considering the question of practicability, it is important to understand the present law regarding components. Buying spares without authority is already illegal. The two parts to which Lord Cullen referred—the slide assembly and cylinder—are already controlled by law. They are pressure-bearing component parts of the gun, which it is impossible to buy or possess without entering it on one's firearms certificate. Any additional slide assembly or cylinder requires the consent of the chief officer of police, who must grant a variation of the original certificate. From the point of view of the present law, there is no difference between buying another gun and buying a replacement slide assembly or cylinder.
The evidence on which the Government's statement relies consists of two letters from Mr. Warlow of the Forensic Science Service, which I shall not refer to in detail. The letters are in the Library—although the first was somewhat late—as those hon. Members who are interested will know.
I do not think that the Government were entirely fair to Mr. Warlow, as his first letter did not bear the interpretation that they sought to put upon it. Nowhere does he say that dismantling is "impracticable". It is perhaps a nuisance—unusual, because it was hitherto unnecessary—but, at worst, would result in the loss of a 10p screw or a scratch on the polish.
Everyone outside the Home Office knows that it is simply not true to say that the proposal is impracticable, as, in the words of Mr. Warlow:
self-loading pistols are designed so as to allow them to be stripped down without the need for tools".

The obvious inadequacy of Mr. Warlow's first letter was exposed during debate in the House on 18 November. The Government were forced to describe it as
a summary of careful consideration by the service".
They said that the letter
was not meant to be a definitive answer to every point raised".— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20 November 1996; c. 7.]
On the same day as the debate on the Floor of the House, Mr. Warlow wrote again to the Home Office. That letter was described by the Minister as offering
as much advice as we are able to release".
We must therefore regard it as the Government's definitive evidence.
Mr. Warlow, in his second letter, added the following:
This procedure (ie dismantling)… would constitute a much resented and annoying imposition on the vast majority of club members.
No club member has yet been able to interpret that extraordinary remark. The Government's new restrictions are extremely onerous and irksome and will annoy many—I dare say all—club members, but why is it more likely to produce annoyance if the storage is of part of a gun instead of the whole gun?
It would be an extremely difficult task to police…effectively at club level,
he said,
especially in instances where the individual is a member of more than one club.
9.15 pm
The present Bill requires a shooter to deposit a gun that is identified on his certificate. The proposal requires the shooter to deposit a named part that is identified on his certificate. The Bill requires the gun to be stored at a single named club. If a shooter belongs to a second club, that condition still has to be complied with. The proposal would require the part to be stored at a single named club in the same way.
Some will possess more than one set of barrel or slide components for their pistol",
goes the criticism. Only if permitted by the police. The Home Office mysteriously failed to acknowledge that each slide assembly and cylinder is, for purposes of the law and police control, already treated as if it were a complete gun. At the commencement of the Act, all the guns and component parts of each legitimate shooter will be known to the police. Therefore, only those parts that conform to the requirements of the new Act and are approved by the police will be allowed to continue. The situation described by Mr. Warlow cannot arise unless the police permit it to arise.
Mr. Warlow then says that some
will possess components which will allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by simple substitution of components".
It is possible for a .32 slide assembly to be substituted for a .22, but only if someone has one. For the same reasons that I have just given, a shooter cannot have both components unless the police permit him to do so. The Act will not permit the police to do so.
A criminal member could obtain 'major components that would pass inspection' prior to storage." 


The only example of that given by Mr. Warlow is that a person could buy a deactivated gun of the same make and model for which no authorisation is necessary, and so deceive the club. That example smacks of desperation, and is a classic instance of arguing from extreme cases. Even so, it relies on the highly contentious assumption that deactivated parts are not easy to spot.
The Home Secretary said:
it would not be difficult for a gun owner to keep an illicit spare at home. That would enable him to reactivate the gun at any time. It is perfectly true that, in doing so, he would be breaking the law, but he would be unlikely to be discovered until it was too late." — [Official Report, 18 November 1996: Vol. 285, c. 784.]
We all know that the number of illegal guns in this country quite probably exceeds, by a substantial proportion, the number of legal guns, but that does not prevent the Government from maintaining a system of legal gun ownership. I think that all hon. Members would support that.
The Government have now added a further offence—to have a .22 pistol outside licensed premises—but that does nothing to alter the distinction between legal and illegal guns. Nor would it make any difference if the new offence were limited to having a complete .22 pistol outside licensed premises, leaving the carrying of a part lawful.
The legal control of the part is as strong as that of the whole: a legal spare part cannot be obtained without police permission. Getting the system off to a secure start will rely on exactly the same information—current certificates—whether we are dealing with dismantled or whole guns. All components, as well as whole guns, that do not conform to the Bill's requirements will have to be surrendered. Illegal components are more difficult to obtain than illegal guns, and probably more expensive. It is difficult to see why anyone willing and able to buy an illegal gun should want to buy an illegal part.
All the objections of the Forensic Science Service are met once it is recognised that, at the commencement of the Act, all pistols will be subject to assessment by the police. A complete inventory of pistols and component parts exists today on firearm certificates. All pistols not conforming to the Act will have to be surrendered and removed from the certificate. That applies in exactly the same way to components. Thereafter, all that is required is for the police to notify the club of any changes in a member's certificate.
The House may wonder why we are making a fuss about this point. First, we are concerned that the keeping of many guns in the same place, possibly on a remote range, will require such high security provisions that very few clubs will be able to afford them. Secondly, the concentration of such guns in complete form may be attractive to a robber. The proposition that carriage should be of complete guns—we shall debate that on the next amendment—is surely far less secure than the contemplation of parts being carried about.
A gun will not work until the part that is kept at home and the part that is at the club are put together. Shooters who continue to use .22 calibre guns see many practical objections to the current proposals. Although dismantling is onerous and tiresome, it is what Lord Cullen recommended, and what I think the shooting fraternity would, with reluctance, accept. I do not think that the Home Secretary has received full enough advice on this

matter. The amendment asks him to think seriously again, either now or during the Bill's passage through the other place, before finally rejecting this alternative.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Home Secretary repeated today the statement that he has made many times, that the prime consideration is the safety of the population. No hon. Member would disagree: the question is how we ensure the preservation and protection of the population. For the purpose of the debate, I shall leave aside my disagreements with what I consider to be bad law. I do not have a vested interest, because I do not own a gun and I have never held one other than during my time in the forces. My only vested interest is as honorary pistol captain of the Palace of Westminster rifle club.
If the measure becomes law, and the odds are that it will, the consequences are already beyond dispute. There will be fewer clubs, because at the moment many clubs use municipal premises or Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve premises. They do not have their own establishments within which to pursue their sport. Those members of clubs that close who wish to continue participating in the sport with .22 calibre only will gravitate towards the clubs that remain.
Therefore, there will not only be fewer clubs but they will have larger memberships, and those members will have to store their weapons in club armouries. That means enlarged armouries. As we have heard, a Stockholm gun club with state-of-the-art security—the most secure provision that could be made, according to the Stockholm police—was raided.
We are creating a ram raider's dream, an Aladdin's cave of firearms from which Jack the lad can help himself. In the past, members of terrorist organisations within these isles of ours have done that at military establishments, and I am certain that others could do it at gun clubs. We are not only penalising a law-abiding section of the community and making it difficult for them, but creating a danger for the population that the Home Secretary has repeatedly said he wants to protect.
The answer to the problem is disassembly. If a set of "half pieces"—the trade term—is left in the club's armoury and each member takes home the other components with him or her, no one will have a working firearm. I ask hon. Members to think about whether that proposal makes sense. It not only makes sense, but, if one extended it to the .32 wadcutter—which is purely a target gun, that is used for no other purpose—it could well reduce compensation costs, and that might be advantageous for the Government.
One of the objections that has been made to the proposal is that not every weapon is amenable to easy dismantling. I have asked experts about that point, and they say that it is true. But they also said that there are very few such weapons, because they are going out of fashion. Walthers, which are impossible to disassemble, probably account for less than 2 per cent. of handguns in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to ask those who participate in shooting sports to stop using such increasingly outdated weapons—which, again, would reduce the amount of compensation that must be paid—and to rely instead on weapons that are amenable to dismantling.
Yesterday evening, there was a demonstration of many weapons in the House. Every model was, within seconds, easily dismantled—as they must be for cleaning. I ask the Home Secretary please to realise that mandatory disassembly will increase public safety.
Overall, three basic requirements must be met in the legislation. First, it must be comprehensive; secondly, it must be properly enforced; and, thirdly, violations must incur an appropriate penalty. To ensure all those requirements, however, we must have a properly resourced, properly trained and well-motivated police force.
We know from our pre-Cullen and post-Cullen experiences and from the evidence that has emerged about Thomas Hamilton that those elements were not in place. How else can we explain the fact that gun clubs that cancelled Hamilton's membership have had their membership records confiscated by the police, and the police now refuse to relinquish them?
Many questions that must be answered depend on that type of evidence, but we are not yet able to obtain it. Nevertheless, we are pressing ahead with this legislation, under a guillotine. This Bill is bad law, because it is ill-conceived and impetuous. I passionately believe that, ultimately, the House and the country will eventually regret its enactment.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting my amendments Nos 63 and 64, although they are supported only by me. I thought that the selection was based on your traditional kindness, but I now think that the real reason is that you appreciate that, when you have a messy Bill, it is crucial to look for a solution. Although, understandably, you have no views on the Bill, I think that you must have seen that my proposal in amendment No. 63 is the sensible answer to a difficult situation.
Hon. Members have been speaking and voting on the Bill according to varying perspectives, because of the Bill's unusual features. I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will be well aware that, in the previous Division, for the first time in my life, I went into a Lobby different from that chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), for whom I have great respect.
I did so simply because I was sincerely and utterly appalled by the speech made by the Labour party Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He said that he did not want to support the new clause simply because it might not pass. Even if that were a valid argument, it was not true. The figures from the Division show that, had the Opposition turned up in strength, they could have won on that new clause.
I have a horrible feeling—although I do not like to cast aspersions loosely—that probably the reason why they did support it was that it was moved by the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan made a super speech—though I am afraid that I disagreed with it—but I voted for his proposal as a protest against the dreadful speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton and the dreadful principle behind it.
Many of us have been voting for measures that we think are daft and saying things that we think are daft, because, through no fault of our splendid Home Secretary—who is a giant in the Cabinet—the Bill is a bit of a mess.

Mr. Salmond: If we keep making super speeches, will the hon. Gentleman be tempted into the Lobby with us again?

Sir Teddy Taylor: If we hear more speeches like that made by the hon. Member for Hamilton, I shall do all kinds of crazy things, and vote for measures that I think are nuts.
Those of us who believe in things—the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and I believe in totally different things—should speak for them and vote for them in the House, and try to build up support for what we believe. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is sitting beside me, is a perfect example. He has been arguing strenuously for years about the dangers of the European Community. He has been laughed at and scorned and people have said that he was talking a load of rubbish, but now most of the Tory party agrees with him because he kept trying.
Unless we are prepared to argue for what we believe in, and to keep fighting and voting for it, we will get nowhere. If we accept the advice of the hon. Member for Hamilton, we might as well not bother to come here, because it will all be a waste of time. Everything he said was bogus because, if Labour Members had turned up, they could have won the vote, and Scotland would have had a ban. That might have made life slightly easier for those south of the border affected by the Bill.
The Government have a big problem. They wanted to reach a compromise. I am sure that there was a violent discussion about it in the Cabinet, in which no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was on the right side and some others may have been on the wrong side. With a partial ban, gun clubs will find it impossible to continue, and the public will be put at risk.
The Southend pistol and gun club, of which I have never been a member, is in my constituency. I called to see the members for the first time recently. They are delightful people. There are not many of them, and they have to pay quite a bit for the sport they are engaged in. How on earth will they pay for the storage that will be needed for all the weapons? It will be virtually impossible.
Although I do not blame my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, he must be aware that the Cabinet's unusual decision will mean that guns will be available only to the very wealthy, perhaps in exclusive clubs such as the House of Commons—we have a club here, of course, and all these wealthy people. The sport will be denied to everyone else.
Ministers should listen to sensible people such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside. As I have said, the last vote was the first time in my life that I had gone into a different Lobby from him, simply because of my outrage at what the hon. Member for Hamilton said. We must look for a solution.
We must also remember public safety. I am sure that the Cabinet tried to get the right answer when arriving at their unusual decision, but they do not appreciate that they


are creating a major public safety problem. Unless we dig a hole 60 ft down with steel 6 ft thick all round it, we cannot have real security for the weapons, because there are so many rascals these days.
Although crime is going down for the first time in living memory because of the splendid and active policies of my right hon. and learned Friend, the plain fact is that we still have a lot of criminals. From the contacts that he must have, my right hon. and learned Friend must be well aware that criminals are becoming cleverer and more able, finding different ways to do things that criminals in the old days did not even think of. They will find a way round a big lock or a security system that does not work. I am scared that the system of storage at clubs will be a real security danger. It will require massive expenditure that average clubs will not be able to afford.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), who has argued well for his amendments, suggested that we should go for partial storage. He pointed out that the arguments against that were bogus. I have suggested a compromise. Accepting amendment No. 63 would leave the way open for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider whether there might be a case for partial storage, and a way of overcoming the arguments that have been put forward against it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should be free to consider partial storage if he thinks that it is right.
Can partial storage work? We all know it can. What are the arguments against it? One seems to be that a clever chap with a gun could have two parts of the gun instead of one to take away—he could have another one at home. That is not a very sensible argument, because I think that we are aware that, if that were so, he would have two guns—one in the club and one at home. Such an argument applies to illegal weapons and illegal possession at the present time. I do not think that that is a very strong argument.
I therefore think that, if my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to allow clubs to continue and to protect the public against the danger of theft of guns from clubs, he should consider very carefully amendment No. 63, which would give him the opportunity, if he thought it appropriate and sensible, to allow for partial storage.
Having looked at amendment No. 63 and found chat it is the right answer, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will also consider the principle of amendment No. 64. Under the Bill, he has power to name separate dates for the implementation of different purposes and different areas of the legislation. In so doing, the Government should bear in mind the importance of allowing time for clubs to do what is necessary under the law. There is no point in rushing such requirements through if the clubs simply cannot meet them. In fixing the dates, my right hon. and learned Friend should bear in mind the importance of a practical answer.
Speaking as a huge admirer—as I think everyone knows—of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his works, I feel rather sorry for him in these debates. Most of the time when we hear him speak, whether at the conferences or in Parliament, he does so firmly, decisively and with conviction about something in which he believes. The problem tonight is that he is supporting a Bill that is a bit of a mess.
We must therefore help him, the country and the Government by accepting amendments Nos. 63 and 64, and trying to ensure that this messy Bill is made more sensible. That is the right way forward. They do not commit him to going in a particular direction; they simply leave the way open for him. Would that not be the right thing to do after a day of confused debate and voting, during which the majority of Members of Parliament have been unhappy, confused and distressed over what has been proposed? Let us try to sort something out.
We spend so much time in the House shouting at one another. Terrible Labour Members shout at the Conservatives—even during Prime Minister's Question Time. My constituents are getting sick of it all. They say, "You don't know who to believe, because everyone is shouting propaganda at each other." They basically say that they cannot believe anyone at all.
We were sent to the House to try to solve problems for the people. Instead of parties shouting at each other over this legislation, we should acknowledge that it is a bit of a mess, and try to make it better. That is why the answer is to support amendments Nos. 63 and 64. No one could object to them, because they are sensible. They suggest a way out of a bit of a mess.
It should be emphasised that the mess was not made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I have never been a member of the Cabinet—it is a shame for the country that I have not—but from what I am told, discussions are in a bit of a mess. Everyone shouts something, someone produces what they think is a compromise, and they find out half an hour later that the supposed compromise is impractical.
That is what has happened with the European business. All the mess that we are in on that is because some in the Cabinet are for it, some are against it and what emerges is a measured solution from which everyone suffers. They suffer more in Europe. I do not know whether the House is aware, but figures were published this morning revealing that an additional 5 million people across the rest of the European Community have become unemployed over the past five years. What is happening is terrible.
I am sure that, if my right hon. and learned Friend thinks about the matter with determination, honesty, integrity and vision, as he does with every other matter, he will appreciate that the right answer lies in amendments Nos. 63 and 64. If they are accepted, we can make a messy Bill better, help the public, preserve security and all walk home tonight a little happier than when we arrived today.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise, as an invisible signatory to amendment No. 58, to support it. I do so faute de mieux, because unfortunately, through some strange aberration or oversight, my own much more subtle and effective amendments were not selected for discussion. Although I have managed to fill the amendment paper with amendments, we have seen a massacre of the innocents. My pauvre bonnes pensées have all disappeared.
The purpose of my amendments—in common with amendment No. 59, although it is much more limited—was to ban all weapons that could not be dismantled, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, is only a small number of handguns, and


to require all other weapons to be dismantled, the weightier part—although I found that concept difficult to put in legislative terms—to be stored at the gun club and the other part taken home. That would give us what we have been arguing for all along—a total ban on assembled, working weapons outside gun clubs.
Thomas Hamilton's actions in Dunblane would have been impossible, because no working, assembled weapons would have been allowed outside gun clubs. If assembled weapons were seen outside, they would be ipso facto—automatically—illegal and illicit and could be dealt with as such. That is a clear, simple, straightforward proposition and its rationality appealed to me, as it appealed to Lord Cullen.
Unfortunately, our judges are too diffident. They do not realise that they must be tougher and more direct with politicians and say what they are going to say, say it and then tell us what they have said. If they approached the task in that way, they might have some hope of getting through to us. But the judge is this case was too subtle. The approach in the amendment was his preferred approach, but he did not take it any further.
The civil servants in the Box know that the amendment embodies a more effective approach. Everybody knows it is a much more effective approach, but the Government wanted a grand gesture. Why? They wanted it because of the tide of feeling in Scotland and because of the threat to the seat of the Secretary of State for Scotland. They wanted a big, simple gesture in the face of that tide of opinion in Scotland. The virtue of achieving their aim in a more direct, rational, effective, cheap and less pernicious way never seemed to occur to the Government. The Labour party wanted an even grander gesture.
The tide of opinion in Scotland has been the motivating force and the dynamic behind the legislation, and was the reason why I voted for new clause 1. If Scotland wants a total ban, Scotland should have a total ban. But the general principle that we must emphasise in connection with these dismantling proposals is simple. Legislation made under strong emotional pressure and backed by a highly emotional campaign—which is understandable I do not criticise it for that—is in danger of being bad legislation or a bit of a mess, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) told us several times. Legislation made in such a situation is bound to be a bit of a mess.
Dismantling would give us all that those on both sides of the House want, simply and straightforwardly, and allow the sport of handgun shooting to continue. I do not see why people who enjoy that sport should not be allowed to continue it if they can do so in licensed, controlled premises, safely and without the guns going outside. Dismantling would allow that and it would also avoid the horrendous problem of compensation.
I have heard the amount mentioned for compensation rise from a starting point of £25 million to £300 million today. I know of no other issue on which the Government, with gay abandon, would sling around millions of quid like that. The parsimonious, Scrooge-like Government who hate to spend a bawbee or a groat are prepared to sling away, unnecessarily, £300 million in compensation. It may well be more, of course—the Home Secretary is

right to nod in that warning fashion. It is true. I agree with him, because we do not know the size of the bill that we are taking on.
There would be no need to take it on at all if my proposal were accepted. Why should we pay that massive bill for compensation, while the security problem remains? When the Government legislation is passed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North said, more guns will be stored in fewer premises—a concentration that will inevitably attract raids.
The art of ram raiding, which is spreading down the country from the north-east, where its most skilled practitioners have taken it to a fine art, will be a threat to gun clubs in which whole weapons are stored. They need not be stored in that fashion; they could simply be dismantled, and all that the ram raiders would get in return for what I hope would be extensive damage to their vehicle—their tank, their milk-float, or whatever—would be parts of weapons.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend gave the tentative figure of £300 million. Does he accept that the figure that I have been given by someone who really knows about guns and valuation is at least £1,200 million?

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell: The Home Secretary shakes his head, but when my hon. Friend has finished his speech it will be interesting to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figure.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is right to say that the bill will escalate in that fashion. When we embark on legislation, we should know what the bill will be at the end of it. If we had known the scale of the bill, perhaps we would have been more enthusiastic and concerned about the dismantling proposal, which would not have required the bill to be paid.
If the Home Secretary had been able to give us a realistic calculation, it would have strengthened the arguments for the kind of dismantling that Lord Cullen, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and I have proposed. We would not then be fighting a last-ditch rearguard action in the hope that the House of Lords will come to the rescue of the beleaguered advocates of common sense in the Chamber. That is an unusual situation, but there we are.
My proposal for dismantling all weapons, as an alternative to a total ban, was not agreed. I must tell the Home Secretary that I had not intended to go as deeply into the issue as I have done. I do not like guns or shooting. Several years ago, when we were discussing the post-Hungerford legislation, I went down to the pistol and gun club for the one and only time. I was terrified to hold one of those things and point it at a target. It was a worse ordeal than speaking in the House, and that in itself is pretty awful. I do not like the whole business, and I did not intend to get involved in it; but, having seen that we were going down what I think is the wrong path, I believe that it is essential, even at this late stage, to put the argument for rationality.
Anyway, it is no use crying over spilt amendments. They are gone, more's the pity. We now have amendment No. 58, which is much more limited in scale. It offers an


alternative method of storage and says to the Government, "You have got what you want. You have got your grand gesture—your ban on all weapons bigger than .22. Now let us approach the last remaining step—a sensible proposal for storing the weapons safely, by requiring them to be dismantled."
The amendment does not offer the grandiose prospect that I held out, of dealing with the problem in a more simple and straightforward way. It is simply a sensible storage suggestion for the Government, and I cannot understand why they will not accept it. Perhaps it undermines the validity of the gesture that they made in the first place, by attempting to ban weapons bigger than .22.
Let me not venture off into abnormal psychology. I shall never hope to understand this Government, or the rationality of Ministers. None the less, I would like them to consider the more limited proposal for safe storage of weapons, because it would avoid the obvious danger. Perhaps it could serve as a beachhead to build on, and to push the process of developing common sense, which we should have pushed earlier.
I hope, therefore, that the Government—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary looks as if he is longing to leap to his feet to accept my argument. If he wants to do so now, in the middle of my speech, I shall give him the opportunity. I hope that he will consider the dismantling issue more seriously than he has done up to now.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare moved the amendment in a sensible, cautious, moderate, sound, well-argued and well-advocated manner, and I hope that he pushes it to a vote. I think that the House should be allowed to vote on the issue of dismantling, as numerous people have come up to me and said, "That is not a bad idea. Why didn't we think of it?" They had not read the Cullen report. People are beginning to come around to the idea of dismantling weapons. It would be useful if the Lords could discuss the Bill in the knowledge that this House was slowly coming around to sense but that, because of the rush of legislation, we had not got there yet.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be extremely brief, because of the Procrustean nature of the guillotine under which we are operating. A guillotine is a good way of preventing a filibuster—which nobody has threatened during debates on this Bill—but it frankly gets in the way of constructive debate. I am not sure whether I am supposed to declare an interest but, in effect, my only shooting has been done with a .22 as an Army cadet and with a .303 in the Army, where, thanks to tuition rather to any innate skill of my own, I became a first-class shot. On only three other occasions have I shot at all, twice with pistols.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has spoken of the technicalities of the amendment, and I do not propose to use up the time of the House in reiterating those. My preoccupation, as evidenced by my interventions during the debate in Committee on the Floor of the House, is with those who shoot at county, regional, national and international level. The amendments that could be beneficial to them have a potentially wider application among other pursuers of target shooting.
The restrictions on particular pistols contained in the Bill are supported by the argument that they will allow our nation to continue to compete in Olympic shooting.
However, that is an empty argument if those who would represent us cannot have the opportunity to train at international levels. We heard earlier this evening about how going beyond Cullen enlarged the need for compensation, and the amendment returns indirectly to that issue.
I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister of State—in line with my comments in Committee on the Floor of the House—about the training regime that those who shoot at international level have to pursue. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank her for the promptness of her reply, although she gave me little comfort on the main issue. Given the rest of the Bill, a key consideration as to whether our international competitors can continue to train will be how many clubs are able to remain open—as the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said—when they have to meet the capital upgrading costs required in the Bill.
If the clubs shrink in number, the time involved in getting to one's club will become more of an obstacle to training. One cannot tell a competitor simply to move, for his or her job may not allow him or her to do so. Thus, the potential solution to the problem of the need to keep one's pistol at an upgraded club, which was offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, becomes a matter of great importance.
There is a further dimension. In my letter to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I alluded—as I did in Committee—to that element of training which at the highest level is technically called kinaesthetic, which represents 80 per cent. of the training at the highest level. It is done without shooting and can be conducted at home, thus hugely simplifying training if it has to be done daily and if the individual's club is open only twice a week. Although one cannot do all the kinaesthetic training without the missing part to which the amendment refers, one could do part of it in that manner. This solution, if viable, would go a long way towards solving a crucial problem at national and international level. That is a further argument in support of the amendment.
I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his Treasury Bench colleagues that, if we do not find a way around these critical training problems, they run the risk of dancing on the grave of British performance in international shooting.

Mr. Beith: I very much agree with the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) about the need to find a way in which those who are engaged in, and those who will in future want to engage in, competitive shooting sports can continue to do so. The amendment provides one route, but there are others.
I am one of those who did not vote either for the total ban or for the Government's alternative solution, because I took the view that neither provided a reasonable basis for compromise between an acceptable system for increasing public security and the reasonable rights of those who use guns responsibly. I felt that Lord Cullen's proposals provided that route, and I do not know how we are to continue inviting judges to conduct inquiries if we ignore them as comprehensively as we have done since the Scott inquiry.
Lord Cullen's proposals have not been debated as seriously as they should have been, except to the extent that the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)


and for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and others have drawn the attention of the House back to them from time to time. I welcome their efforts, because I believe that the proposals provide an acceptable basis for legislation.
When the Government considered the proposals, they felt that they should go further, and we as a party said in our original statement that we would assist in ensuring that a Bill could be introduced and dealt with expeditiously on that basis, although we believed that the central issue of the banning of handguns—if at all, and to what extent—should be a matter for a free vote. My party has done what it said, but some problems remain.
The Government have made some valuable moves on compensation, and we welcome that, but they have made no sensible provision for people who could legitimately engage in international shooting sports. The amendment represents one of the ways in which that could be done. As has been said, the Cullen method—the disassembly method—has significant public safety advantages over the retention of guns in one piece, whether in a gun club or elsewhere.
As I listened to the parents bereaved by the terrible disaster that prompted this legislation, I often asked myself whether I should vote for what they strongly believe that the House should vote for as the solution to the problem. The answer to that rhetorical question must be no, because neither I nor any other hon. Member can suspend judgment on what would be the most effective way of preventing such a tragedy from happening again simply because those closest to it feel that a total ban is the only way.
The legislation is not a matter of paying the greatest tribute that we can to the children who lost their lives on that murderous day; it is a matter of how we can best ensure that such an event is less likely to happen again, while protecting the reasonable rights of those people who are legitimately engaged in sport, in so far as those rights do not promote or assist the committing of such terrible acts.
That is a difficult decision to make, and I do not attack the Government for devising the complicated further compromise that has formed the basis of the Bill, but I feel that we have not given sufficient weight to Lord Cullen's sensible proposals.

Mr. Gill: I support amendment No. 58. In an earlier debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary relied heavily on a letter from the Forensic Science Service that right hon. and hon. Members had not had the opportunity to read. When we read it, many of us were disappointed at how thin the evidence was. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has demonstrated this evening that almost everything in the letter could be proved to be misleading, inaccurate or incapable of being substantiated.
According to the information that I have received, 95 per cent. of pistols and revolvers are multi-shot and only 5 per cent. are single-shot, but of the multi-shot weapons only 5 or 10 per cent. are not capable of being dismantled. The vast majority, then, can be dismantled.
It is simple common sense that dismantling weapons, and keeping their separate parts in different places, is a far more secure means of keeping them out of harm's way

than concentrating them in clubs, where it is known that there will be a concentration of weapons. That will create enormous security problems for clubs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary knows of the concern expressed this evening about the cost to the sport of the measures. He will recognise that 113 hon. Members voted for an amendment that would have obliged the Government to introduce compensation for consequential loss.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable on these matters. Would he care to hazard a guess at an overall figure for compensation?

10 pm

Mr. Gill: I have no idea. I sense that the figure that is most commonly used is an underestimate, but I have no means of judging the correct figure. I suspect that it will be higher than the £300 million that has been mentioned in the debate.
The cost of compliance with the regulations could be substantially reduced if we were prepared to countenance an amendment that allowed disassembly. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary accepts that the physical security required to protect such weapons if they were kept in separate parts in separate places would be much less than that required by keeping them all in the same place, quite apart from the greater risk run by concentrating so many weapons in one place.
The cost of keeping weapons in one piece in clubs will be substantial and will severely reduce the number of clubs. If the Government intend to have a severe reduction in the number of clubs, they should be up front about it and say so. Inevitably, the number of clubs will be reduced by dint of the fact that many clubs meet on an ad hoc basis in rented accommodation and have no premises of their own to make secure. The opportunities for people to enjoy the sport will be severely restricted.
I hope that the issue of disassembly will be considered by their Lordships in due course and improvements made.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will their Lordships not find it strange that every hon. Member who has spoken has supported the principle of considering disassembly carefully, as I am sure the Home Secretary would like to do?

Mr. Gill: Not only do I think that their Lordships will be interested in that point, which is right, but the other thing that gives hope for the future is that they will recognise the common sense of tackling the problem in this way rather than through the draconian measures proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The idea of dismantling is winning the argument, although the votes may not be there in the end. I support amendment No. 58 and, as a fallback, amendment No. 63, although it places much faith in the Secretary of State. I do not know whether I have such faith either in the current Secretary of State or in his successor on this matter.
I believe that the dismantling of guns is the solution to an extremely difficult problem. It would also resolve many of the other difficulties described. If the Government's position is held on the availability of .22s


in gun clubs, it would be necessary for the Government to introduce an amendment on dismantling. The dismantling argument is a genuine one and should apply in all circumstances. In fact, it has been pointed out that it is quite likely that the argument about .22s relates to a de facto ban on handguns. Ideally, I would like all guns to be dismantled for safety.
I met the parents of Dunblane for about 25 minutes before the Second Reading of the Bill. It was probably the most emotionally draining experience that I have had as a Member of Parliament, especially because I had to put my case, which was different from their own. All my fellow feelings went to out those parents as I imagined the terrible things that they had been through and what their children had suffered. In general, I am to be found on the side of humanitarian feelings when matters are discussed in the House, so it may be surprising that on this occasion I seem to have taken a different stand.
I received letters of support from gun clubs because of positions that I adopted previously and a speech that I made on Second Reading. I do not, however, identify with gun clubs. I do not have any experience of them or of guns. The last time I came near a rifle was 40 years ago, when I completed my national service. I do not like the gun club culture, and I am concerned about the willingness of people to belong to such clubs.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am bit worried about the use of the term "gun club culture." As I know it, the gun club culture has at the top of its agenda safety, safety and safety. Every member of every gun club I know is indoctrinated in a strict regime which ensures that no one can possibly come into any danger from a weapon. Even if a weapon is empty, one is taught to point it down range and not to fool around with it. Anyone who transgresses is quickly rebuked either by the range officer or by fellow members of the club.

Mr. Barnes: I do not deny that. That intervention was useful because it illustrates the different stance taken by me and by my hon. Friend, although we support the same measure.
I do not like the circumstances in which such a willingness to indulge in the sport of shooting has grown up. I grant that safety measures are taken, and we must take that into account. Some people enjoy different sports as their pastime from those with which I am familiar. I am extremely conscious that certain rights are involved, and I would not wish to lay down my own code of practice.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), who moved amendment No.58, said that members of gun clubs have reluctantly accepted that dismantling is the answer. They have opted for the tactical dismantling position, whereas I am a genuine dismantler. I am not claiming that that is not a genuine belief, but it comes from assessing the alternatives and practicalities involved, as I shall seek to show.
To some extent, I wish to argue with those who do not accept dismantling because they want a complete ban on handguns. That body of opinion is still around and there is still a possibility that a ban will be proposed at some point in the future. I do not believe, however, that we can get rid of handguns in one fell swoop. There are tremendous dangers in moving in that direction. Much as

I might wish for a magical act whereby people's values and attitudes would change, that will not occur in reality. If we try to force that on people, there is a grave danger of the proliferation of illegally held guns and ammunition, and even of the operation of illegal gun clubs.
The Home Secretary uses that sort of argument and claims that we should keep .22 weapons in clubs because a complete ban would lead to that dangerous situation. I accept some of the logic of that argument, but I do not believe that the Secretary of State has given the reasons for his policy fully enough.
If he gave the reasons, they would tell in favour of dismantling because of the possibility of guns being held illegally on a much wider basis. It is better to regulate and control—especially where we have a method by which that can be done—than it is to ban and fail. There is a great danger of failure in these circumstances. The Government's position whereby .22 pistols will be held in clubs seems to me to pose all the dangers that other hon. Members have described so well, such as clubs being raided or unsafe.
I am greatly concerned that we have not had the courtesy to consider and discuss Lord Cullen's report. We have been bounced straight into a White Paper and legislation. We were asked to consider only two views, but we have not done so. Lord Cullen did not even put those views forward as strong recommendations—he said that we had to make up our own minds. He wanted us to consider those two possibilities and I have heard nothing to make me deviate from his position.
The first possibility that Cullen put forward was dismantling, of which I am in favour. He said that if there were impracticalities connected with that—I do not think that there are—he would then be in favour of banning. He would not have been in favour of this halfway house of keeping .22 pistols. I adhere to that opinion.
In the previous Division, I supported banning, but only because I did not have a prior opportunity to vote in favour of dismantling. In fact, I tabled an amendment which sought to sneak in front of the one on banning, but it was not selected. I wanted to be able to vote in favour of dismantling, but I could not do so and—very reluctantly—I joined those in favour of banning, although I thought then and I still think that it is fraught with difficulty.
I do not think that the impracticalities of dismantling claimed by the Home Office and the Police Federation and set out in the letters that many of us have obtained are anything like so great as the problems that will be encountered in searching for and finding the banned guns, because many will pass quickly into illegal ownership.

Mr. Beith: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's very good speech but, for the record, perhaps it should be made clear tha,t when Lord Cullen said that the alternative to dismantling was banning, he was talking about banning the individual possession of handguns, not necessarily excluding their use in clubs.

Mr. Barnes: I grant that point. There are different methods by which banning can be engaged, and the end position, which is still compatible with what Lord Cullen says, would be a total ban.
We have there a position which meets all the needs of the situation. We have an opportunity to debate and discuss those matters. Many people outside this place


believe that we should have considered them thoroughly, and feel affronted by the procedures that we have engaged in the House. They feel affronted by the way in which we have dismissed the Cullen report and moved rapidly into legislation. We have acted fast, often for very honourable reasons and as a result of strong emotion. As has been said, however, we must use our judgment about such situations, and that judgment should be in line with amendment No. 58.

Mr. Dalyell: A minute ago, the figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer swooped into the Chamber.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Waddled.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says "waddled", but I am sure that "swooped" is a better description of the movement of a Chancellor of the Exchequer.
That prompts me to ask a question, because I am exceedingly curious. In the past few weeks, has no Treasury official visited the Home Office and said, "Look here, your Home Secretary is introducing a Bill. We wonder what the costs of all this will be"? During times of Labour government at least, any movement by another Department that would lead to substantial—or insubstantial—costs immediately attracts the attention of the all-seeing Treasury.
I ask the Home Secretary this question. When the Treasury officials have descended on the Home Office or summoned his officials and said, "Look here, Mr. Secretary of State, exactly what are you involving us in? What are the likely costs, and when, of the measures you propose?" I should like to know what answer was given, because some answer may have been given.
I am in a similar position to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—I do not know. A figure of £300 million has been given. The figure that I was given by a noble Lord—not of my political persuasion, but one who knows about guns—is vastly more than £300 million. What has the Home Secretary said to the Treasury?

Mr. Henderson: I do not wish to detain the House more than necessary, as it appears capable of detaining itself tonight, but I must respond to points that have been made from both sides of the House.
I am firmly of the view, and have been since my mind became concentrated on the issue of pistols after the horror of Dunblane, that it would be almost impossible to prevent leakage, given the ingenuity of evil people and criminals, if one allowed pistols to be in circulation.
When presenting its evidence to Cullen, the Labour party said that its collective instinct was, broadly, the instinct that I expressed as an individual, but there was a caveat to the effect that, if a safe method could be found of continuing to allow the ownership and use of pistols, that option should be examined and might lead to a separate conclusion. I was prepared to consider possible alternatives. As a keen sportsmen, I do not like people not to take part in a sport that they want to participate in, but in Committee I added a proviso: provided that that sport does not endanger other people.
There have been arguments in favour of another way of protecting the sport and, at the same time, of meeting the fears of the public and of the vast majority of Members of this House who support either the Government's position or our position. Can these guns be dismantled so as to render them safe? I have looked into that. Regardless of what the experts say, it seems only common sense to me that keeping track of which bit of which gun was in which location in what circumstances—and who was looking after it—would present a bureaucratic nightmare and would stretch the abilities of even the most intelligent drafter of legislation to breaking point.
We do, however, have expert opinion as well. The Minister of State in Committee and the Home Secretary on his Second Reading both intimated that the Government's forensic experts have stated that there are severe problems with dismantling. The guns would be damaged and would thus be useless for sport; moreover, because of the damage, they might be rendered more dangerous and unpredictable. Lord Cullen recognised that. The British Shooting Sports Council drew Cullen's attention, on page 125 of the report, to the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee by Jim Sharples, chief constable of Merseyside and president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. He said that he believed that there could be problems with dismantling guns. He said:
They could be damaged very easily".
and went on to outline other problems that could arise.
The BSSC has in a way undermined its own arguments. Having lost the argument on pistol use, it now argues that dismantling can be effective—

Mr. Frank Cook: If my hon. Friend had attended the demonstration to which I understand that he was invited yesterday evening, he would have seen a range of .22 weapons of various types dismantled in seconds, as they regularly are for cleaning, and reassembled in seconds without any problems at all. So my hon. Friend's argument is spurious. What is more, illegal guns can be obtained more easily than legal ones, and can be bought more cheaply. So these arguments do not stand up when it comes to protecting the population and avoiding a repetition of Dunblane.

Mr. Henderson: I do not know a lot about guns, but I have seen them being dismantled. I took the trouble to ask the Metropolitan police to show me guns used by the military, the police and gun clubs. They showed me the extent to which they can be dismantled, the extent to which parts are interchangeable, and how a clever engineer can easily adapt one piece of equipment to another—especially if he is criminally minded. The Metropolitan police armourers regularly make replacement parts for guns, and they are of the view that dismantling is not a practical solution.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening and giving me the chance to tell the House what I have seen for myself. If nothing else, what I have seen has convinced me of the hopelessness of the dismantling solution.
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was able to catch your eye, but I must reluctantly conclude that I cannot support the amendments.

Mr. Howard: The debate has been wide ranging and has covered various aspects of dismantling. We heard, as we have heard throughout the day, a series of cogent speeches.


The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) accused us of ignoring the recommendations in Lord Cullen's report. The report contained 23 recommendations, and we have accepted every one of them. Lord Cullen also made suggestions—not recommendations—concerning the possession and ownership of handguns. In relation to those suggestions, the Government have taken the view that we can meet his objectives through a different route. As we have accepted all 23 of Lord Cullen's recommendations, I do not think that it can seriously be contended that we have ignored his report.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Home Secretary accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, many people who use guns felt that they had been unfairly treated? Although the Government may have accepted the recommendations, they were not debated. The Government presented their conclusions before any of us had a chance to read the report and before the people who were affected by them had the chance to contribute to the debate. That is the source of most of the irritation: people feel that the debate has not been fairly and responsibly handled.

Mr. Howard: That complaint comes ill from a party which supported a complete ban on handguns. It is all very well for individual Members to say that they did not vote for it, but their party did and their complaint does not lie well against that background.
The subject of amendments Nos. 58 and 63—the dismantling of guns—was explored during the Second Reading debate and by the Committee of the whole House. I will repeat why the Government have not felt able to go down that route. I accept at the outset that it is a matter of judgment and that it is not possible to prove conclusively that one argument is right and one argument is wrong, and I understand why some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Opposition Members reach a different judgment from that reached by the Government.
Many handguns, it is true, could be dismantled in some way, but there are practical problems with that approach. They have been identified by the Forensic Science Service, reinforced by the police, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said in his contribution, and they must be taken seriously. In the light of those practical objections, and taking into account the advice of the Forensic Science Service, we do not believe that disassembly would provide guaranteed assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined individual.
For example, some people will possess more than one set of barrel and slide components for their pistol, or will possess components that will allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by the simple substitution of components. It would be impossible to be certain that a person could not still possess a complete weapon at home by keeping such an illicit spare. Indeed, the frames of some pistols are specially made so that the owner can purchase a comprehensive range of barrels of different lengths and cartridge chamberings, which can be simply substituted and fitted at the will of the user. That could again lead to the situation where a person would be in possession of a complete firearm although appearing to comply with club regulations.
Of course, it could be argued that a way of combating the risk of people keeping illicit spares would be to require them to lodge with the club secretary the frame of the gun, rather than some small component such as the slide or the cylinder—a point made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), if I remember correctly. However, it would not be acceptable for the club secretary to keep at home several hundred gun frames, each one of which would require only a small component to reactivate it. It would therefore be necessary for the frames to be stored under secure conditions in a gun club. I do not see that that proposal has any significant advantage over the Government's proposals, and it would create even greater difficulties for those who engage in competitive shooting.
Amendment No. 62 is intended to allow registered firearms dealers' premises to be used for storing small-calibre pistols as part of a licensed pistol club. The amendment is unnecessary. The definition of "licensed premises" in clause 12 does not prevent a registered firearms dealer's premises being specified in a pistol club's licence as the place where small-calibre pistols may be stored. Whether or not they are stored there will depend on the individual circumstances of the pistol club that wishes to be licensed. Some existing pistol clubs are run by gun dealers and are situated on the dealer's premises.
10.30 pm
The chief officer of police for the area in which the pistol club premises will be situated will advise me whether a registered firearms dealer's premises is a suitable place for small-calibre pistols to be stored in any particular case. The key requirement would be that it met the levels of security necessary to ensure that guns could not be stolen or removed illicitly from the premises.
Amendment No. 64, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—who made a most engaging speech—is intended to allow new licensed pistol clubs time to make arrangements to comply with the Bill's provisions. That is unnecessary as paragraph 10(2) of schedule 1 already allows the Secretary of State to define the transitional period. It will be possible to extend the period if it is considered that pistol clubs have not had enough time to obtain a licence.
An important consideration is that, as soon as reasonably possible after the commencement of the Act, we should have removed all handguns from people's homes with the exception of those—such as vets—with special authority to have them. Therefore, .22 handgun owners will be required to store their small-calibre firearms with the police until they can find a club in which to store their guns.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it conceivable that the Treasury officials have failed in their duty to get in touch with the Home Office to ask about cost estimates? If they have not failed in their duty, what on earth did the Home Office officials say?

Mr. Howard: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is inconceivable. The Treasury has, of course, been fully consulted, and I am happy to lay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties to rest.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Home Secretary will tell me the figure, I shall sleep well tonight.

Mr. Howard: Our best estimate—I am not sure whether it will help the hon. Gentleman to sleep well—is that our


compensation proposals will lead to a total bill of up to £150 million. We think that the Opposition's estimates are considerable exaggerations. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Finally, I turn to Government amendment No. 85, which provides that buying or acquiring a pistol should be a proper purpose for the police to issue a permit allowing a pistol to be outside licensed club premises. That follows the Government's undertaking, given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Standing Committee, and a corresponding amendment tabled originally by my hon Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).
Amendments Nos. 84 and 86 are minor consequential amendments to that amendment.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: With the leave of the House, I must admit that I am more than somewhat disappointed by the Government's response to a debate in which every Member who spoke advanced very plausible reasons for investigating further the dismantling of firearms as a security measure. The proposal has come about not as a result of the shooters' wish to see their firearms dismantled, but as a means of trying to improve the practicalities of the situation and to allow the sport—which will be totally decimated by the Bill—to survive in very difficult circumstances.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a small item—it need not be a large item, but it must be the same item, preferably the butt or the frame—being kept in one place and the other item taken home. I do not believe that the Government have advanced a logical argument to sustain their position. I believe that it would be better if this matter were gone over in much greater detail in the other place.
I have no desire to press my amendment today, on condition that the Home Office bears in mind the very strong weight of technical feeling on the subject and the speeches that it will have heard this evening. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

PERMITS TO HAVE SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOLS OUTSIDE LICENSED PISTOL CLUBS.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 4, line 15, after 'exceptional', insert
'or subsection (2A) below applies.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 60, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
'(2A) A person who is certified by the recognised governing body of the sport to be a person who has been invited to be a member of the group from which national competitors at international competitions will be selected may be granted a permit under subsection 1 to which subsection 2 shall not apply; and such permit shall be granted for one year and be renewable while membership of the group continues to be certified'.
Government amendment No. 115.
No. 61, in schedule 2, page 23, line 26, at end insert—

'(6A) In section 53 (rules for implementing this Act), after paragraph (a), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(aa) recognising specified bodies as recognised governing bodies for the purposes of section 8(2A) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.".'.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I shall be brief, as the amendment is self-explanatory.
The three amendments would permit the chief officer of police to grant a year's permit to people chosen to be members of the national squad, and who live in his area, to represent the country in international competition. The permit would be granted only while they were members of the squad, and the squad is a closely defined body of people established by the national authority. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), under the guise of the last amendment, made a substantial plea that we try to allow our finest marksmen the opportunity to continue to represent the country internationally. Indeed, the Prime Minister said, in the foreword to "Raising the Game":
I want to help our best sports men and women make the very best of their talents. I take as much pride as anyone in seeing them lead the world. I do not want to see them having to go abroad to learn how to exploit their talents".
I shall not go into great detail on the matter, except to say that to qualify for the national squad is an extremely arduous process. Most competitors will have been shooting for at least eight years. Some enter the sport as young as 14 and work their way up through the junior ranks to the adult national team. These top-class sports men and women represent the United Kingdom and home nations at Olympic, Commonwealth and world championship level. Places are not always filled, as the standards required are so high, so there are occasions when there are vacancies. Competitors will usually have worked up to the level through the regional squads based on Sports Council regions, consisting of the 10 English regions plus Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If those individuals can achieve that standard under the conditions that will be imposed on sporting shooters in future, they will be pretty exceptional men and women. Given that they are under the closest scrutiny, that they will be shooting to the highest possible standards and that they will be well known before admission to the squads, the Government might consider making a concession and allowing them to have custody of their firearms, under the special permits issued by the chief officers, for the simple and only reason that they are seeking to maintain Britain's position as one of the foremost competition shooting countries in the world.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) must be congratulated on the diligence with which he has pursued his case throughout the Bill's consideration. On a number of occasions he has used various routes to make his point. Indeed, in this group of amendments, we are again debating areas that are broadly similar to those that we discussed at some length in Committee. As we come to the closing stages of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman can certainly go back to those whom he represents and say that he has prosecuted his case very well.
One point that must be borne in mind is that, on every vote in the House, the view of the vast majority of hon. Members has been absolutely clear: they want the tightest


possible restriction on handguns. The Labour party has supported the Government to an extent, and our view, and that of several Conservative Members, was that there should be a total ban on handguns. The amendments contain yet another opportunity for loopholes, and in such serious legislation it does no one any service to create loopholes.
As I have said, the view of the House is clear. As we approach the end of our debates on the legislation no one can be in any doubt that although there may be differences between us on some aspects of the Bill, the vast majority of hon. Members hold the clear view that there must be a tightening of the legislation on handguns. If we go down the route that was suggested by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, we shall have to define the meaning of "exceptional".
I would mislead the House if I said that I was a great sports enthusiast. In times long past I was an undergraduate with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who is an enthusiastic sportsman. Perhaps it was his enthusiasm for sport that made me go in the opposite direction.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare argued convincingly about the difficulty of defining the level of sportsmanship and of what constitutes a national competition. That takes us into a difficult area. In addition, if we allow the loophole that would be permitted by the amendment to be opened up, handgun enthusiasts would make a pressing case for increasing the number of national competitions.
The next argument would be that if we wished marksmen and markswomen to be exceptional, they would have to have more training opportunities. The amendment provides a year's remission to such people in terms of applying to remove their pistols from shooting clubs.
These are substantial and disturbing loopholes. Thomas Hamilton was a good marksman, but he did not devote himself to competition. He was such a good marksman that, when he fired his gun 109 times, 38 lethal wounds were inflicted. That was the action that led to us considering this legislation.
I regret that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)is not in his place. He deprecated the stand of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on a "Scotland only" ban. It is important for the House to recognise the extent to which the people of Dunblane are watching us prosecute the case for the legislation. As a consequence of an earlier vote, some young men and women in Dunblane high school started a hunger strike, and it was only through the intervention of relatives of those who were bereaved that they were persuaded to end it. If they see further loopholes in the legislation, they will take the view that the House is not listening to them and to public opinion in general. We have a duty to represent public opinion.
Notwithstanding the energetic and sometimes rather unpleasant moves by those who have sought to influence views in the House, it is clear that the vast majority of people in this country, and not just in Scotland, favour the adoption of the maximum means of restricting the use of handguns. In a sense, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare contradicts the lobby that he seeks to support. On page 121, paragraph 9.68, the Cullen report quotes the British Shooting Sports Council as stating:

no matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would be a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent on recovering his guns"—
I ask the hon. Member for Southend, East to listen closely—
to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of the complete gun together with ammunition for it, and perpetrate an outrage".
That was said not by people who agree with my position on the issue but from those who are on his side in the debate. If we were to support these amendments, we would be allowing guns to be outside controlled premises for up to a year.
10.45 pm
Amendment No. 115 addresses an issue that we discussed in Committee, and significant points about it were raised during that debate by the Minister of State. The amendment generally deals with the issues raised in Committee, although there is a real need for the guidance to the police that will accompany the legislation, to ensure that due caution is taken in assessing whether all reasonable action has been taken in ensuring compliance with the legislation.
Therefore, it will come as no surprise that Government amendment No. 115 is attractive to the Opposition. However, amendment Nos. 59 to 61 create a loophole which I think that the public would regard as unnecessary. Ultimately, the legislation's purpose is to ensure public safety. That must come before every other consideration.

Mr. Brooke: I rise again in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), in the context of his amendment affecting those who compete at international level. During the Bill's Committee stage on the Floor of the House, on November 18, I spoke about the training that international competitors are required to follow. I followed up on that with a letter to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to which, as I said in an earlier debate, she has replied with admirable promptness. I appreciate that.
My hon. Friend concluded her letter with the paragraph:
Inevitably there will be sportsmen and women who will be disadvantaged by these measures. However the Government must make its first priority the protection of the public. We are determined that target shooting may continue but only under the very strictest of conditions.
I understand the principle inherent in the paragraph, which underlines the overall principle of the Bill. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that, in the context of the national squad, it is insulting. The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) has just reinforced that belief, in a not notably well-informed speech.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Committee that there might be occasions on which pistol owners require to have their pistols outside a club, but envisaged that those occasions would be rare, and thus exceptional. The would be covered by the Bill. I alluded in my letter to her to a constituent of mine, who has since sent me the details of the required training programme at national and international level. It involves 45 different episodes arid events a year away from the home club. I do not know whether that is what my hon. Friend calls "rare" or "exceptional".
The virtue of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is that they meet not only the requirements of that programme comprising


45 episodes, with all its attendant third-party carriage, but they meet the kinaesthetic element of training in one's own home, which, as I said on November 18 and earlier in this debate, represents 80 per cent. of the training that I described in detail in my letter to my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Frank Cook: I speak in support of sound logic, and I have been a bit concerned about some of the arguments that have been made in this debate. The raison d'être of this legislation originates in an incident involving a mentally deranged person who had a firearms certificate and membership in several gun clubs—the membership records of which have disappeared, because the police have confiscated them and now refuse to release them, so that they can be examined properly.
On the basis of that deranged behaviour, we are being told that our national sportsmen and sportswomen, whom we formerly hailed as heroes when they returned with gold medals—which were in very short supply in any other sport—cannot be trusted. That is tantamount to saying that Fatima Whitbread should not have been allowed to hold a javelin in case she thrust it into the chest of a policeman on traffic duty. It is preposterous to use one extreme to try to prove an argument at the other end of the spectrum. It is unfair. It is unwarranted. It is unjustifiable. It is inexcusable.
I am sick of hearing about loopholes. We hear loophole, loophole, loophole all the time. Some people estimate that there are 250,000 illegally held weapons in the country, but other authorities tell us that there may be 4 million. That is a large loophole. The police tell me that 2,500 handguns are crossing the channel from the continent. That is another large loophole. I have heard very little about closing those loopholes. We should spend more time thinking about that than trying to stop law-abiding people following a perfectly justifiable and respectable pastime.

Miss Widdecombe: I appreciate the sentiments behind amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61, but I cannot imagine any justification for treating members of national or international squads differently from other small-calibre pistol owners.
We considered carefully whether a pistol outside a club on permit should be conveyed by its owner or by a third party. We concluded that unless there were exceptional circumstances, transport should be by a third party. We consider it essential that, in all but the most exceptional cases, pistol and owner should be quite separate when they are both in public. There may be occasions on which pistol owners need to have their pistol outside a club, but we envisage that they will be as I have said—exceptional.
I also do not think that permits should be granted for a year at a time. The chief officer needs to decide in each case that he is granting a permit for a proper purpose, as listed in clause 8(3). It is unlikely that any purpose would justify a permit of a year's duration. Granting a blanket permit would not allow him to do that and may mean that individuals had their pistols outside club premises for other reasons.
Government amendment No. 115 has been tabled in response to the amendment tabled in Committee by my hon Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). It

allows a person a defence of having taken all reasonable steps to avoid commission of the offence in clause 8(5) of failing to comply with the conditions on a permit. It will, for example, guard against a third party carrier failing, solely through his own fault, to deliver a pistol in accordance with the permit conditions. The certificate holder would then be able to prove that the fault lay with the carrier rather than with him.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 4, line 21, leave out
'of a licensed pistol club'
and insert
'at which it is required to be kept'.
No. 85, in page 4, line 22, at beginning insert—
'() conveying the pistol to those premises following—

(i) the release of the pistol from a police station at which it has been kept under Schedule 1 to this Act;
(ii) the purchase or acquisition of the pistol; or
(iii) a change in the licensed premises at which the pistol is required to be kept;'.

No. 86, in page 4, leave out lines 24 and 25.
No. 115, in page 5, line 3, at end insert—
'(5A) In proceedings against any person for an offence under subsection (5)(a) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 10

SURRENDER OF PROHIBITED SMALL FIREARMS

Amendment proposed: No. 69, in page 5, line 24, after 'firearms', insert 'or ammunition'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 70 to 72 the following: Amendment. No. 12 in page 5, line 29, at end insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State shall make a scheme for the disposal of firearms surrendered under this Act.
(4) No scheme shall be made by the Secretary of State under this section before he has laid before Parliament a report on the general principles which he proposes should underlie the scheme and each House has come to a resolution in respect of that report.'.

Mr. Henderson: Amendment No. 12 was tabled because of concern that has been expressed by a number of organisations and individuals about what happens to the guns once they have been handed into police stations. We are talking about 160,000 guns. There are obviously a number of different ways in which they could be disposed of. They could be melted down or—presumably—sold. There would be considerable concern if those guns were sold and ended up in the hands of international gun dealers, who then disposed of them in areas of the world either where people were concerned about guns ending up or where there were bans on the export of guns from the United Kingdom for whatever reason.
The amendment requires the Government to stipulate what they intend to do with the guns that will be collected, and it suggests that the Government report to the House at a later stage on the way in which those guns will be disposed of.

Miss Widdecombe: I regret that I cannot support amendment No. 12. I assume that the intention behind it


is to ensure that all weapons surrendered as a result of the Bill are destroyed, but there may be a case, as in previous schemes, to make available to certain publicly funded museums and other bodies a small percentage of the weapons involved. That will include only those firearms of a special scientific or national heritage value, and we are discussing the options with the police.
I assure the House that probably the vast majority—but not all—of the weapons surrendered will be destroyed by the police in accordance with force practice locally. I see no merit in parliamentary involvement in that operational exercise by the police, and ask the House to reject the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 5, line 26, at end insert 'or section 25 below'.

No. 71, in page 5, line 28, after 'firearms', insert 'or ammunition'.

No. 72, in page 5, line 29, after 'firearms' insert 'or ammunition'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 11

PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF PROHIBITED SMALL FIREARMS

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 5, line 31, leave out from 'payments' to end of line 41 and insert
'in respect of firearms and ammunition surrendered at designated police stations in accordance with the arrangements made by him under section 10 above.
(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide only for the making of payments to persons making claims for such payments in respect of firearms or ammunition—

(a) which they had, and were entitled to have in their possession on or immediately before 16th October 1996 by virtue of firearm certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers; or
(b) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled to have in their possession after that date by virtue of such certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers,

and their possession of which will become, or has become, unlawful by virtue of section 1(2) above or section 25 below.
(3) A scheme under subsection (1) above may—

(a) restrict eligibility for receipt of payments to claims; made in respect of firearms or ammunition surrendered within a period specified in the scheme;
(b) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims;
(c) make different provision for different descriptions of firearm or ammunition or for different descriptions of claimant.'.

No. 74, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with any scheme which may be made by him, make payments in respect of ancillary equipment of any description specified in the scheme.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above "ancillary equipment" means equipment, other than prohibited ammunition, which—

(a) is designed or adapted for use in connection with firearms prohibited by virtue of section 1(2) above; and
(b) has no practicable use in connection with any firearm which is not a prohibited weapon.

(6) A scheme under subsection (4) above shall provide only for the making of payments to persons making claims for such payments in respect of ancillary equipment—

(a) which they had in their possession on 16th October 1996; or
(b) which they had in their possession after that date, having purchased it by virtue of a contract entered into before that date.

(7) No payment shall be made under a scheme under subsection (4) above in relation to any ammunition unless its possession or, as the case may be, purchase by any person claiming a payment in respect of it was, at all material times, lawful by virtue of a firearm certificate held by him or by virtue of his being a registered firearms dealer.
(8) A scheme under subsection (4) above may require, as a condition of eligibility for receipt of payments under the scheme in respect of any equipment—

(a) the surrender (whether to the police or any other person) of that equipment in accordance with the scheme within a period specified by the scheme; or
(b) the disposal of that equipment by way of sale within a period so specified; or
(c) either such surrender or such disposal of that equipment within a period so specified.

(9) A scheme under this section may—

(a) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims;
(b) make different provision for different descriptions of equipment or for different descriptions of claimant.'. —(Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 12

PURPOSE OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 6, line 6, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Act'.

No. 97, in page 6, line 8, after "'licensed' insert 'pistol club" .

No. 112, in page 6 leave out lines 14 to 17.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 14

EXEMPTIONS FROM SECTION 1 OF THE 1968 ACT FOR OFFICERS ETC. OF LICENSED PISTOL CLUBS

Amendment made: No. 113, in page 7, transfer lines 1 to 10 to end of line 6 on page 9.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 15

GRANT OF LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 114, in page 7, line 29, at end insert—
'(6) In this Part "the responsible officer", in relation to a licensed pistol club, means the officer of the club to whom the licence was granted or who has since become the responsible officer by virtue of a variation of the terms of the licence.'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 18

DURATION OF LICENCE AND RENEWAL

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 8, line 13, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'.

No. 88, in page 8, line 14, leave out 'five' and insert 'six' .—[Mr. Ot1taway.]

Clause 21

REGISTERS TO BE KEPT BY LICENSED PISTOL CLUBS

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 9, line 18, at end insert
'(ab) a description of the pistol;'.
No. 99, in page 9, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert
'and any entry relating to the date on which a pistol was first stored at the premises, or its subsequent removal from or return to those premises, shall be made within twenty four hours of that event.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 26

EXCEPTION FROM PROHIBITION FOR EXPANDING AMMUNITION ETC. TO BE USED FOR SHOOTING DEER OR CONTROLLING VERMIN

Amendments made: No. 117, in page 11, line 3, leave out from the beginning to end of line 4 and insert—
'(1) Section 5A of the 1968 Act (exemptions from requirement of authority under section 5) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (collections), after the words "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted the words "and (3A)".
(3)In subsection (3) (collectors), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below," and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) Subsections (1) and (3) above do not apply in relation to the possession, purchase, acquisition, sale or transfer of expanding ammunition.
(4) In subsection (4) (shooting of animals)-'.
No. 118, in page 11, line 5, after 'paragraph (a)' insert
'after the word "certificate" there shall he inserted the words "or a visitor's firearm permit under section 17 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988" and'.
No. 119, in page 11, line 9, leave out from 'certificate' to end of line 12 and insert
'or permit is subject to a condition restricting the use of any expanding ammunition to use in connection with the lawful shooting of deer or the shooting of vermin or, in the course of carrying on activities in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife'.
No. 120, in page 11, line 12, at end insert —
'( ) In subsection (5) (ammunition designed to be capable of being used with a slaughtering instrument), in paragraph (a) after the word "entitled," there shall be inserted the words "by virtue of a firearm certificate or".
( ) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(5A) The authority of the Secretary of State shall not be required by virtue of subsection (1A) of section 5 of this Act for any person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, any expanding ammunition or the missile for such ammunition if—

(a) he is authorised by a firearm certificate or visitor's firearm permit to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, any expanding ammunition; and
(b) the certificate or permit is subject to a condition restricting the use of any expanding ammunition to use in connection with the humane killing of animals.'.— [Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 31

APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES AND REFEREES

Amendment made: No. 116, in page 13, line 14, after 'statement' insert 'in the prescribed form.'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 32

GRANT OF FIREARM CERTIFICATES

Mr. Salmond: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 6, at end insert—
'Provided that a chief officer of police shall not grant a certificate for a small-calibre pistol where, by doing so, he would thereby increase the number of small-calibre pistols for which certificates continued in force in a police authority area above the number of certificates for small-calibre pistols which were in force in that area on 16th October 1996.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to place a cap on the number of .22 pistol licences that could be issued. The Minister knows of my concern that over time we may see the trading down from higher-calibre weapons to new .22 weapons in compensation. In the 20 or so seconds that remain, can the Minister tell us whether she has given that matter consideration and can think of any other way to stop, in the medium term, trading from higher calibre weapons to new .22 weapons?

Mr. John Carlisle: Amendment No. 18 should be totally rejected by the House because trying to persuade people to purchase certain types of weapons using the compensation, inadequate though it may be—
It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 November and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Amendment negatived.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Clause 33

REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES

Amendment made: No. 100, in page 15, line 5, leave out 'refusal' and insert 'partial revocation'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 34

POWER OF SEARCH WITH WARRANT

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 16, line 29, leave out 'books' and insert 'records'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 36

APPROVED RIFLE CLUBS

Amendments made: No. 102. in page 18, line 4, leave out 'may'.
No. 103, in page 18, line 5, after '(a)' insert 'may'.
No. 89, in page 18, line 28, after 'section' insert 'and section 15A below'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Clause 38

INTERPRETATION AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 19, line 1, at end insert—
'"licence", "licensed pistol club" and "licensed premises" have the meanings given by section 12 above;'.
No. 82, in page 19, line 17, at end add —
'(6) The provisions of this Act shall be treated as contained in the 1968 Act for the purposes of the Firearms Act 1982 (imitation firearms readily convertible into firearms to which section 1 of that Act applies).'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Schedule 1

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOLS

Amendments made: No. 105, in page 20, line 5, after 'who' insert '(a)'.

No. 75, in page 20, line 6, after first 'pistol', insert 'belonging to him'.

No. 106, in page 20, line 7, at end insert '; and
(b) will, after the appointed day, be required to keep that pistol at licensed premises of a licensed pistol club.'.

No. 76, in page 20, line 16, leave out 'voluntarily'.

No. 77, in page 20, line 17, at end insert 'under paragraph 8A(2) below'.

No. 107, in page 20, line 25, leave out second 'renewal' and insert 'renewed'.

No. 108, in page 21, line 11, leave out 'deliver' and insert 'release'.

No. 109, in page 21, line 21, after 'require' insert 'such'.

No. 110, in page 21, line 23, leave out 'which' and insert 'as'.

No. 78, in page 21, line 33, leave out 'voluntarily'.

No. 79, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—

'Voluntary surrender of pistols
8A.—(1) A person to whom this Schedule applies may before the appointed day, surrender a small-calibre pistol belonging to him at any designated police station instead of keeping it at licensed premises of a licensed pistol club or delivering it into police custody.
(2) Where a small-calibre pistol has been delivered into police custody, the person who delivered it may (if it still belongs to him) surrender the pistol by giving notice that he is surrendering it to the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station to which he delivered it is situated.
8B. The Secretary of State may make such payments, to such persons, as he may consider appropriate in respect of small-calibre pistols which are surrendered, or are treated as having been surrendered, by virtue of paragraph 8 or 8A above.'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Schedule 2

CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 22, line 27, after '23(2) insert32(2)'.

No. 111, in page 23, line 26, at end insert—
'6A. In section 44(1) (appeals from police decisions under Part II), for the words "section 26, 29, 30" there shall be substituted the words "section 28A, 29, 30A, 30B, 30C".

6B. In section 54(1) (application of Parts I and II to the Crown) for the words "26 to 32" there shall be substituted the words "26A to 32".'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Howard: The Bill is a complicated one. It deals with a vital public issue, and right hon. and hon. Members have given voice to a number of important concerns. I pay especial tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), who has moved the many amendments in his name with considerable persistence and skill.
I shall not go over again the background to the Bill. It has always been the Government's intention to recognise the priority that has to be given to achieving the protection of the public while allowing a limited amount of competitive pistol shooting to continue, so long as that could be combined with the protection of the public.
We have accepted, as I said earlier, all 23 of Lord Cullen's recommendations, and we have sought to achieve the objectives that he set out in his suggestions for the control of the ownership and possession of pistols in a different way. We have also sought to make reasonable exclusions from the scope of the Bill, when consistent with those objectives, and we have made a number of concessions on the question of compensation.
The exceptions include the exclusion of muzzle-loading firearms from the general prohibition, which will allow their continued use by historical enactment societies and their holding by collectors. There will be no changes to the existing arrangements for antique pistols.
I announced on Second Reading that we would introduce an amendment to deal with historic handguns made before 1939. We have taken the views of the Firearms Consultative Committee and others, but we are not quite ready to table an amendment on that point. We shall do so when the Bill is in another place. We also intend to table amendments in another place to extend the scope of museum licences to ensure that regimental and other museums that are not publicly funded will be able to apply to keep weapons of historical importance.
In response to concerns expressed in Committee and earlier today, we have asked the Firearms Consultative Committee to look afresh at controls on air weapons and on age limits in general. If there is a case for putting forward changes, and if time allows, we shall do so in another place.
The Bill is an important measure to protect and reassure the public by banning the majority of handguns from the home and public places. It imposes rigorous controls over the procurement, ownership, storage, use and disposal of the smaller calibre pistols that may continue to be used for the sport of target shooting.
The dreadful tragedy of Dunblane placed on the Government an inescapable duty to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns. We have not shirked that duty. The Bill sets out the way in which the Government believe that the objective of strict control of access to handguns can most effectively be achieved. It will provide the public with the protection they need and deserve, while allowing a limited amount of pistol shooting to continue in secure conditions. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: We support Third Reading, as we have supported the Bill throughout its passage. During today's debates, many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in favour of amendments intended to reduce the degree of gun control in the Bill have understandably claimed that most or even all of the speakers in debates on particular amendments, apart from the people on the Front Benches, have supported that liberalisation of control.
One understands why those hon. Members make that point, but I must tell the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), that it is important to bear in mind the fact that, on Second Reading, the Bill was endorsed by an overwhelming vote. That was well demonstrated when only 35 Members voted in favour of the reasoned amendment, while 384 voted against it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The Bill may have gone through on an overwhelming vote, but it also provoked the biggest revolt in the Government party that I can remember in the 17 years during which I have been a Member of Parliament. More than 100 Conservative Members want to have nothing to do with the Bill, and they are right.

Mr. Straw: It is a bit difficult to divine whether there has been a Government revolt, judging by the number of abstentions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suffer badly from partial hearing loss, and I am anxious to hear every syllable of my hon. Friend's speech. There is much discussion taking place inside the Chamber but beyond the Bar. May I ask you to draw the attention of the House to that fact?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the point has been made, because all those hon. Members have now left the Chamber.

Mr. Cook: And it was all done without a handgun.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend obviously has a future ahead of him in clearing rooms.
If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) judges Government revolts by the numbers of Conservative Members who abstain, he should know that the number who abstained on Second Reading of the Crime (Sentences) Bill was rather larger than the number who abstained on Second Reading of the Bill before us. [Interruption.] That happens to be a matter of fact. I do not pretend that it is a sign of an extensive revolt in the governing party.
In an intervention during the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) in an earlier debate, a Conservative Member—I think, but am not certain, that it was the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—asked when, before the tragedy in Dunblane, anyone in the House had talked about stricter gun control.
The answer is that, over several years, many hon. Members have raised that issue. My hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)

and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) both did so in 1987, before Hungerford. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has done so assiduously and repeatedly over the years, and he introduced a detailed Adjournment debate on the subject in May 1995.
The Conservative Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) also examined the matter, with the publication in 1972 of a commendable Green Paper on firearms control, which, sadly, was never followed through into legislation.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ludlow is very much in the affirmative, but there is a related question that he might have asked, to which there is a profoundly depressing and negative answer. That question is: what notice was taken of those who called for gun control before Dunblane? The dismal answer is that, despite the persuasiveness of their arguments, in practice little notice was taken of those who had the foresight to call for greater gun control. I admit that that applies to both sides of the House.
The victims of Dunblane—indeed, the victims of Hungerford—might have been saved had notice been taken, but it was not. With the benefit of hindsight on both sides of the House, we can now see that this Bill should have been on the statute book years ago. We must all share in the responsibility for the dismal truth that it will have taken the dreadful massacre at Dunblane to get it on to the statute book.
It is said that, as a result of this Bill, we will have among the toughest gun controls laws in the world. Personally, I am very glad of that. The more that I have listened to the arguments of the gun lobby as they have supported the privilege of their members to hold handguns, the more I have been convinced of the necessity to ensure that there is a complete ban on the ownership and possession of handguns in general civilian use. The gun lobby has, in my judgment, done its case no good at all.
The Bill goes a significant way towards achieving our aim of a complete ban on handguns in general civilian use, but it does not, in our view, go far enough. If, as I expect, we win the forthcoming general election, we shall introduce legislation to provide for that complete ban, and we shall invite the House to support it on a free vote.

Mr. John Carlisle: In the very unlikely event of Labour taking power, what will its attitude be to shotguns? I know that the hon. Gentleman's personal opinion, as expressed on the Floor of the House, is that he does not foresee any further restrictions, but there has been pressure from Opposition Back Benchers, as some of the amendments tabled to the Bill have shown. Can he give us an absolute assurance that a Labour Government—should there be one—will not restrict shotguns under any circumstances?

Mr. Straw: I can give the hon. Gentleman almost all the assurances he seeks. We made it clear in the evidence that we gave to Lord Cullen's inquiry that we saw a clear distinction between shotguns and other firearms.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will in a moment, but I would like to answer the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle)


first, if that is acceptable. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is a man of great politeness, and he will wish to show some consideration to his hon. Friend.
We said in our evidence that there is a case for distinguishing—as the law currently does—between shotguns and other firearms. Shotguns are in widespread use in rural areas by farmers in keeping down vermin, and by those involved in game shooting. We also said that we thought that there should be a tightening of the system for applying for and being issued with a certificate. We have no proposals, and I anticipate none, for introducing general bans on the use of shotguns. I make that absolutely clear.

Mr. Budgen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that this measure has come as a result of popular pressure acceded to by both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches. One of the most important and persuasive advocates of that motive for legislation has been my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). He was asked, "If somebody went mad and killed a lot of people with a shotgun, would you be in favour of a ban on shotguns, provided there was a sufficient public clamour?"
He made it plain that, as far as he was concerned, the cry of the mob was what activated him most of all in the introduction of legislation. If that is the view of one of the most persuasive and eloquent Tory advocates of a general ban, how can we sure that the Labour party will not be similarly persuaded?

Mr. Straw: Because members of the mob are to be found only on the Conservative Benches—that is the simple answer. We exercise our judgment on these matters.[Interruption.] I shall ignore the sedentary intervention about the number of mobsters at Stamford Bridge from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), as this is a serious debate. We have reached our view, and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney has come to a different view.
I do not believe that shotguns are in the same category as handguns. Shotguns are not manufactured to kill human beings, although I know that they can do so. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) wants to tell me that they are manufactured for that purpose, I will readily give way to him.
Shotguns are used for what I regard as legitimate sports, and we have no proposals to change the current regime on them except in respect of certification procedures. Those changes would be widely accepted by those who legitimately and lawfully use shotguns.
The parents of the 16 children killed at Dunblane have grieved for their sons and daughters every day since 13 March, and they will do so every day for the rest of their lives. Anniversaries are particularly hard to bear, especially when children have died. While most of us will be celebrating Christmas this year, the pain at their loss will be all the more intense for the parents of Dunblane and their relatives and friends.
We have actively co-operated with the Government to get the legislation on the statute book. It was a widely shared hope that it would pass through both Houses and be law by Christmas. That has not, in the event, proved

possible, but the fact that the Bill has proceeded through all its stages in the Commons before Christmas may serve as a testament to all the parents of Dunblane and their relatives and friends of our determination to ensure, as far as humanly possible, that such a senseless waste of life never happens again.

Mr. Budgen: This is a had Bill, badly made. It has been badly made partly because the Opposition agree to it in principle and partly because the Government have been so unwise as to impose not a justified guillotine, after proper discussion or the suspicion of filibustering, but a scandalous and precautionary guillotine at the very beginning. I call it scandalous because the parents of Dunblane and the whole nation deserve to have legislation that is properly made.
One of the conditions of having legislation properly made is that those who feel strongly about something should listen carefully to those who feel equally strongly, so that they can be persuaded at least to understand that others share their passion, albeit from a different point of view.
The legislation has also been scandalously badly made because of the way in which we have brought together Report and Third Reading. When the already scandalous proposal for a precautionary guillotine was introduced, it was at first proposed that there should be a gap between Report and Third Reading, which would have allowed a period of consultation between those who are affected and those who are making the law.
There is no way in which the gun clubs can say whether they believe, for instance, that the proposals for compensation will be fair to them, and no way in which the lawyers can examine the hastily made amendments and say whether the legislation is sound.
We hear many speeches about the impertinence of the judges, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary often jokes about the way in which he is so often in conflict with the judiciary. In three or four years' time, the House of Lords in its judicial capacity will have to examine one of the amendments that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, helped the Government to nod through in the last five minutes before 11 o'clock, and the Home Secretary and a vast number of lawyers, at great expense to the public, will have to weigh up with agonising care the meaning of some phrase that has not even been considered in our proceedings.
Can we wonder that the judges say that Parliament is not doing its job, and that it acts as a vote-catching machine, not a proper legislature? Can we complain when they regard themselves as operating in some way as subsidiary Back Benchers? Can we wonder that they extend the doctrine of judicial review when we behave so badly as we have in the course of these proceedings?
I want to introduce a word that Lord Cullen used in his report, because it seemed to me to be a new word: proportionality. The Home Secretary—and I, rather inadequately—learned our law at about the same time at Cambridge. I remember that the word in those days was "reasonableness", but "proportionality" seems to be the word that is used now, especially by lawyers who know something about European law.
It is not a bad word, especially when everyone is always talking about the necessity for public safety. However, public safety is not an absolute good to be pursued at all costs and in all circumstances. The public must accept some risks in their lives, as we all do. We cannot obliterate risk all the time at the greatest cost in terms both of freedom and public expenditure.
In our disgracefully truncated proceedings today, we have arbitrarily extended the recommendations made by Lord Cullen. Before anybody says that this is only the voice of a mixture of muddled libertarianism and aggressive gun club rhetoric—

Mr. Straw: It is.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that it is not.
I accept that firearms were inadequately controlled before the Cullen report. I have a little experience of that because, as an occasional hack provincial barrister, it has been my job over the years to appear on behalf of people who wanted to get firearms certificates. I accept that the procedure was too lax. It was necessarily too lax, because it is drummed into everyone who has anything to do with our system of criminal law that we are all presumed innocent until proved guilty. There is no doubt that, from time to time, rather odd and potentially dangerous people got firearms certificates. I am glad that Lord Cullen suggested a way to make that first barrier more stringent, and it should be adopted.
Lord Cullen also suggested a second and very helpful barrier. He said that people should be obliged to be members of gun clubs. That would result in constant surveillance by gun club members, because they would be anxious to keep their own certificates so that they could continue their lawful—and some would say, patriotic—sport. I think that that was enough.
Then there is the doctrine of proportionality. What are we doing in this Bill?

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, find it passing strange that Lord Cullen did not examine the granting and refusal of firearms certificates in Northern Ireland, where it is an executive rather than a legal matter?

Mr. Budgen: I do not know that I think it should be only an executive matter.

Mr. Ross: It works.

Mr. Budgen: Let me explain. The hon. Gentleman may think that I am too much of a libertarian, but I think that, when police refuse a citizen a firearms certificate, that citizen should have a right of appeal to the Crown court. However, I think that the criteria by which such certificates are granted should be tightened.
I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) is not with us, because I have been privileged to discuss the matters publicly with him. He speaks in a manner which I am sure he finds extremely persuasive, because he repeats it so many times. He says that he does not want there to be any gun culture

as in America, and that there is no right to bear arms. As far as I know, with the exception of the European Union, we do not have a written constitution, anyway. There is no right to bear arms.
I think that the first barrier I mentioned should be made more difficult to climb. I am glad that Lord Cullen made those suggestions. It was also entirely sensible for him to erect a further barrier—the membership of those clubs. Here we come to the doctrine of proportionality. Of course, I repeat, we are not dealing with the literally millions of handguns and firearms that are held illegally. We are dealing with the problem that arises as a result of the 4 per cent. of crimes in which firearms are used which are held legally.
I should have thought that Lord Cullen's two new barriers would have eroded that 4 per cent. quite a lot. If, for the sake of argument, his two new barriers reduced the 4 per cent. to 2 per cent., is it reasonable to extend the Cullen recommendations to reduce that remaining 2 per cent. at such enormous cost?
What is the cost? First, we are depriving 55,000 people of their lawful activity, an activity that has been regarded in the past as a patriotic one, not unlike the Territorial Army. [Interruption.] Oh yes, that is so. I concede that, in the past, odd, deranged and unstable people have engaged in target shooting, as no doubt there have been such people in the Territorial Army. I maintain that the two Cullen barriers deal with that possibility.
We are depriving 55,000 people of their lawful pleasure. We are also bankrupting—yes, bankrupting—a lot of people. I had intended to vote for the wider element of compensation, and I was, and remain, very angry on behalf of those who are to be bankrupted. I did think, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend made a distinguished and, to me, persuasive speech as to why compensation should not be extended.
If we, the legislature, say that the fire regulations that we impose upon an hotel must be made stringent, we should not then compensate the owner when he goes out of business. That is analogous to tonight's argument on compensation. But that means that a large number of people will, in aggregate, bear losses amounting to about £300 million as a result of our attempt to reduce that 2 per cent. of crime that is committed with legally held weapons.
Call it the doctrine of proportionality, call it reasonableness, call it better legislation, call it what one will, this is a grossly arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable Bill. It is has been bashed through the House in a way of which we ought to be very ashamed. It is bad legislation, badly made.

Mr. Frank Cook: It was my fortune—good or otherwise—to act as Whip on what became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I see on both sides of the House tonight several of my colleagues in the Committee on that Bill—indeed, the Minister who led is sitting on the Treasury Bench at this moment. I remind the House that the limitation of time was also applied on that occasion and we were left with 67 clauses that had not even been thought about, let alone discussed. The legislation was ill thought out, ill conceived and badly enacted and, as we now know, it was also ineffective. We are in danger of repeating that nonsense tonight.
I have already pointed out to the House, and I am prepared to stand by my statements, that it is easier to buy a gun on the illegal market that it is to buy it from a gun dealer. It costs less to buy a gun on the illegal market than it costs to buy it from a gun dealer. The Bill will not affect that fact.

Mr. John Carlisle: It will make it
worse.

Mr. Cook: Indeed, I fancy that it will. The Home Office is now advising that the larger calibre guns should be transported to the continent to be sold to gun dealers there, who are waiting for the prohibition to come into force so that they can buy them at a cheaper price. They can then send the guns back across the channel among the 2,500 that come here every week anyway. There will be more guns available; there will be more of them more available; and there will be more of them more available at less cost. It is nonsense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that, as and when the Labour party is elected to power—I firmly believe that it will be—legislation will be introduced to prohibit all handguns. There was a country that did that some time ago. One of its statesmen said:
At last a civilised nation has complete firearms restriction. Our streets will be safer, our police more effective and the world will follow our lead into the future.
That was said in 1935 by Adolf Hitler.
The Swiss have a proverb—they say that, if the Government cannot trust the people, the people cannot trust the Government. Hon. Members might be surprised to learn that 6 million legal handguns are held in Switzerland, a country whose population is much smaller than ours, yet there are far fewer murders in that country. That suggests that the problem lies not in gun ownership, but in law enforcement. If law enforcement had been executed properly in respect of Thomas Hamilton and, before that, in respect of Michael Ryan at Hungerford, perhaps those incidents might not have occurred.
What is certain is that we would not have had to listen to Front Benchers saying that those incidents were committed with legally held weapons. In my view, they were not legally held. Those certificates should not have been granted. If due diligence had been exercised by the police, as it should have been, our debate today would have been quite different and the people who have conducted themselves so properly while following a respectable sport would not be the process of being penalised for something that none of them ever did.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave a welcome assurance to the House on the subject of shotguns, but, as I recall, his reason for so doing was that shotguns are not designed for killing people. Nor are .22 handguns, .32 wadcutters or .38 wadcutters. For reasons that I nevertheless understand, the Labour party has decided that all handguns are to be banned—it has been carried away by public opinion, about which we have heard so much during this debate.
During the debates on the Bill, I have been constantly asked about public opinion, not only by politicians, but by the media. My assessment is that it is not public opinion that has carried us into this extraordinary position, but press opinion.
It would be intriguing to learn the weight of Members' mailbags from throughout the country. Earlier, there was an exchange on that subject. Before the recent debate started, my mailbag on banning guns was very small, but the newspapers were raging away, day in, day out, and holding competitions to discover who could call for the most draconian measures—newspapers that subsequently refused to take advertisements from those of us who were on the side of the shooters.
Emotion has been turned on full flow. Anyone who heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) speak earlier will acknowledge that he earned an Oscar for emotion, and it is ridiculous to suggest that he was not using the situation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) has materially changed his earlier views on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, as he was entitled to do. He is a supporter of football. Since the war, 289 people have been killed at major football matches; we do not hear much about that. By contrast, the so-called shooting lobby, the respectable, law-abiding citizens whom I have had the honour to represent throughout the Bill's passage, have been subject to denigration and vituperation, as though they were evil.
We do not approve of some people. The gentleman who was arrested this morning falls into that category. The so-called Shooters' Rights Association and the Sportsmen's Association are not members of the British Shooting Sports Council. We have sought to stick together as respectable, respected, self-disciplined, proper organisations, and I hope that we have behaved as such.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for his kind comments. I thank very much those in the BSSC who worked hard, under great duress, to prepare the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said many times that the Bill was a bit of a mess. That is the understatement of the evening—it is a shambles. The Times said that the largest revolt by Conservative Back Benchers this Parliament occurred on Second Reading, and I suspect that tonight's vote on compensation will have been even greater.
The Government never learn. The mistakes that were made, were also made in 1987. To rush through a Bill based on perceived public opinion, without careful consultation, leads to the mess that we are in today. The tragedy is that nothing that we have done will prevent another madman finding an illegal weapon and committing a similar or worse crime. I said that in 1988, as did many of my colleagues, during the passage of the 1988 Act.
The simple solution, to say, "We shall reduce legally held firearms," does not bear inspection. Year after year, the number of legally held firearms has decreased and the number of crimes committed with firearms has increased. I share the Government's objective, but the Bill is no way to attain it.

Mr. Beith: Notwithstanding the criticisms that have been made of the Bill and the way in which it has been proceeded with, it has been improved in its progress through the House, and the effort of several hon. Members has been worth while. The compensation provisions, although still far from satisfactory in some respects, have been improved. We are grateful for that.
I was especially worried that those who own the smaller guns that would remain legal would find themselves with an unmarketable gun, whose value would be virtually destroyed, and no access to the compensation scheme. The Government have sought to change that provision, and I welcome that change on their part.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) argued strongly that there should be some form of independent valuation. The Government conceded today that, when disputes arise, some form of valuation should be available, even if not in the form proposed in our amendment. I very much welcome that.
There has also been some improvement in clarifying the exemptions from the Bill, which Labour Front-Bench spokesmen would call loopholes. Even Labour's ban would have made provision for vets, as well as those involved in slaughtering animals, to hold guns. One man's loophole is another man's legitimate exception for the purposes of his profession or, as some would argue, of his sport. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about what exceptions should be allowed under whatever ban in ultimately enforced.
There have been—quite properly—discussions of antiques, muzzle-loading weapons, re-enactment societies and so on; and some improvements have been secured. In another place, more work will have to be done on those issues.
There have been differences within all three parties over the central issue of handguns. Most of my right hon. and hon. Friends felt that they should support the idea of a virtually total ban, as proposed by the Labour party. Others did not, and we exercised our right to a free vote accordingly, but on three points there should, I feel, be widespread agreement. First, the method of proceeding in this matter has been far from satisfactory. After so dreadful an incident as Dunblane, it was reasonable that the public should expect a fairly quick response from the Government and the legislature. However, that does not really justify the way in which it was done.
I particularly draw attention to what took place on the day that the Cullen report was published. The Government prepared their own position, to announce at the same time as the report was published. A handful of us were able to spend the morning reading the report and another half hour looking at the Government's view. In almost any other democratic country, and in many other circumstances in this country, the route would be: publish the report, have some public discussion of it, then reach a conclusion. The Government simply announced their conclusion, which differed from the report, before anybody else could read it—least of all those whose professions or sporting activities were in this area—and that was certainly not a sensible way to proceed.
The Government were committed before they could hear anyone else's views on what Lord Cullen had said. I do not regard that as a sensible way to proceed; it has led to many of the difficulties that the legislation presents.
The second point on which there ought to be general agreement concerns the value of the provisions in part III, which arise directly from the Cullen recommendations

that the licensing system should be tightened up. For instance, anyone seeking to renew a licence should be open to as much scrutiny and prospect of refusal as when first taking out the licence. Lord Cullen regarded these and related provisions as important. I hope that all hon. Members do, too. They lead me to believe that I would be wrong, despite my criticisms of the Bill, to oppose the Bill as a whole. I want those part III provisions brought into force.
There is one more point on which we ought to try to secure general agreement. At times, that has not been apparent, when there have been emotional speeches about how we should respond to the understandable concerns of the Dunblane families and the press. It would be quite wrong to create false expectations about what the legislation can achieve. The most promising part of the Bill is to be found in part III and in the signal that it will give to police forces to be much more effective in implementation than the Central Scotland constabulary were in the case of Hamilton. It is to be hoped that there will be a general tightening up of procedures.
Leading people to believe that, because of a further restriction on the legal holding of guns, the country will be a safer place would falsify the picture and create quite false expectations. Vigilance of all kinds will continue to be required, especially on the part of those enforcing the legislation, and it does legislation and the work of Parliament no good to suggest that we can achieve miracles when we cannot.

Mr. John Carlisle: I apologise for my absence from the proceedings earlier this afternoon. It was, as reported in The Daily Telegraph, because I was shooting at home with five or six colleagues and 15 or 16 beaters. They were not gun-crazed madmen out to destroy everything in their path; they were reasonable, honest people—some of them taking a day's holiday to enjoy a day's beating. They were typical of those who are seriously affected by this Bill. They are ordinary people who are devastated by the effect it will have on their sport. That is why I have totally opposed the progress of the Bill through this place.
I shall make three brief points, each related to a myth. The first, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said, is the myth that the Bill may be passed tonight on the basis that public opinion demands it. That is nonsense, as those of us who have had enormous postbags can demonstrate. The Bill is a concession to the lobby mounted partly by the Labour party and partly by the Snowdrop campaign, purely on the basis of emotion. It is always difficult to argue against emotion, which overtook rational thinking. The Government regrettably abandoned reason and took emotion on board, as did the Labour party, especially at its conference. That myth has now been exploded.
The second myth is that this is the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. It is not; it is the Firearms (Confiscation) Bill. It takes firearms from honest people who, through their own efforts, have pursued a sport that they thoroughly enjoy, a noble sport that, as hon. Members on both sides have said, has brought our country great prestige. The Bill will take away weapons that people use legitimately. Those are ordinary folk who vote for us when we look for their support at general elections.
The third myth is that the Bill will do anything to prevent another Dunblane. It will not prevent another Hamilton. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North


(Mr. Cook) said in an eloquent and sensible speech, the Bill will have no effect other than to increase the number of illegal guns. That will be an important issue, come the general election. Sadly, I will not contest the election, but great men are trying to persuade electors in various directions. I hope that electors will consider their candidates' attitude to the Bill, as well as to other issues.
This is a confiscation Bill which takes away the freedom of the individual. It shames the House and the Government that we should think of introducing it in the form in which it has been presented to us this evening.

11.46

Mr. Salmond: It would be irrelevant whether the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) contested the election or not—either way, he certainly would not be here afterwards. One of the great consolations offered by the Bill is the hon. Gentleman's agitation. He was so agitated a few moments ago that he stuck his tongue out at me across the Chamber. That was one of his more elevated contributions to the debate. One of his hon. Friends told me at an earlier stage of the proceedings that he thought that the hon. Gentleman had a hide like a rhinoceros. I think that that was an underestimate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We are on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Salmond: I was being mild about the hon. Member for Luton, North, given his behaviour during the entire proceedings, and many people in Scotland will know what I am talking about.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) who, by contrast, has made some intelligent contributions to the debate, said earlier that this was a bad Bill. I do not think that it is a bad Bill, but it is a deficient Bill because at its heart there is a contradiction—an uneasy compromise between the ambitions of the Secretary of State for Scotland who, it is widely supposed, wanted to eliminate handguns, and the Home Secretary, who wanted to protect some elements of handgun use.
That uneasy compromise is shown up in three aspects of the Bill. First, there is a distinction between handguns of .22 calibre and those of higher calibre. That distinction is impossible to defend in terms of intelligence or logic. Secondly, the Bill allows and creates arsenals at handgun clubs, which will continue to store .22 weapons. Those are deadly weapons and the stores will be arsenals for criminals and others. That argument, which was advanced by the gun lobby itself during the Cullen inquiry, has not been effectively answered by the Bill.
I hope that, if the Secretary of State sums up, he will address the third issue. Many of us are concerned about the loophole in the Bill that would allow the number of .22 weapons to grow rather than diminish over time, as people trade down from higher calibre weapons. There are areas of concern and deficiencies in the Bill, but it is an improvement on the current position. As I can say that about little of the Government's legislative programme, if the issue is forced to a Division, my hon. Friends and I shall support it on Third Reading as we did on Second Reading.
Issues such as this generate much emotion, and it would be a very strange person who did not feel emotional about the tragic massacre at Dunblane. However, I do not

believe that the arguments for a total handgun ban were put on purely emotional grounds. I think that they were argued on sensible, logical grounds, and that that argument is much superior to the uneasy compromise that the Government have reached. When the proceedings are concluded, all hon. Members should be able to say that they have squared their actions with their consciences. Many hon. Members on both sides of the argument can make that assertion, but all cannot.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that the issue will go to the election. That is true, but I assure him that some people in Scotland will look at the proceedings in this place and at the lack of action this evening and will think ill of those who were not prepared to pursue their arguments into the Division Lobby. People want to see hon. Members square their actions with their consciences.
I pay tribute to the conduct and the campaign of the Dunblane relatives and to the Snowdrop petition, which was attacked by the hon. Member for Luton, North. Throughout the debate, they have behaved with enormous dignity and advanced their arguments with enormous dignity. Any hon. Member with the sense to listen to those arguments owes them an enormous debt of gratitude.

Sir Terence Higgins: This is a bad Bill, which has been inadequately debated. We did not need a guillotine, and I think that the House of Commons should have had the opportunity to examine the matter in detail. When the issue was last debated on the Floor of the House, we needed more debating time between each chop of the guillotine. This evening, the Home Secretary said that he did not have time to reply to an important debate on compensation, even though he was cut off by his own guillotine.
It is extraordinary that some hon. Members seem to think that it is possible to legislate, and that they must do so in haste, to prevent maniacs going berserk and committing atrocities. Tonight's 10 o'clock news carried the story of an individual who went berserk with a machete in a children's playground, allegedly because he felt the same way about society as those who committed the atrocities in Hunger-ford and Dunblane. In such circumstances, the futility of trying to legislate in this manner becomes obvious.
It is equally clear that one must take due account of the interests of those who engage in the sport of shooting. I hope that the other place will, first, consider properly the question of compensation; and, secondly, examine Lord Cullen's proposals carefully. I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who said that it was wrong for the Government to differ from Lord Cullen's report without giving hon. Members the opportunity to discuss the matter. I hope that the other place will also examine the dismantling proposals.
The Home Secretary says that gun owners can keep spare parts all over the place. However, before someone would be willing to go to such lengths, he would probably buy an illegal weapon—which is much easier to obtain. That is a totally false point. Although the other place is not normally concerned with financial matters, I hope that it will examine the cost of the Government's compensation proposals compared with Lord Cullen's recommendations. If one is to spend£150 million—a sum


vastly in excess of what appeared in the Bill's explanatory memorandum on Second Reading—spending it on law enforcement is far more likely to avoid the problems that we have faced than the proposals in the Bill. Therefore, I hope very much that their Lordships will consider the Bill in an appropriate way and deal in particular with the three important issues that we have not had time adequately to discuss.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I have not spoken this evening until now because I felt that I had been steamrollered, like many other hon. Members, by the emotion of the subject. The people who suffered in Dunblane—the parents—have every right to demand everything that they feel will do something to justify the loss of their children. We have a different responsibility in the House. We have to take a view that is weighed. We have to make judgments.
I believe that the Bill is totally flawed. There was an investigation by a noble Lord, who went into every part of the subject, and one of his recommendations was the dismantling of weapons—the keeping of weapons in separate places. We discussed that earlier this evening, but if we are talking about increasing public safety—we are not talking about the emotional issue of what we can do to help to solve the hurt of the parents of Dunblane—we have to look at how we can make the public safe, and one way to do that is by dismantling weapons and keeping them in separate places.
Lord Cullen made 23 other recommendations that are right to be put into law, but we are turning our faces against his recommendation for dismantling, and on the most spurious grounds that I can possibly imagine. I know a little about the subject and it is possible to dismantle weapons and keep them in different parts quite safely and in a way that would genuinely protect the public.
We had the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which is also flawed. It did not prevent Dunblane. I said at the time that we should make it more difficult for people to appeal against a police decision, and the shootists did not support that, but that is now one of Lord Cullen's 23 recommendations. That alone will make it much safer for the public in future. Had that been done after Hungerford, we would not be discussing tonight how to increase public safety.
We are in grave danger of not increasing public safety if we ignore dismantling. I hope fervently that their Lordships will table such an amendment, that it will be carried and that it will be accepted by the Government, for the sake of public safety.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Like the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), I have not contributed to any debate on the Bill so far, but I feel moved to do so because I have been following it closely, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, through the columns of Hansard.
I have received dozens of letters from my constituents—all but one are opposed to the proposed legislation. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made wise, constructive and considered comments. We

heard from the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). He also made wise, forceful but sensible comments, because he represents the real world of pistol shooting, revolver shooting and gun clubs. I must therefore tell my right hon. and learned Friend that the Bill is misguided. It is ill considered and unfair, and we shall rue the day that the House passed it. I hope that the Bill will be carefully scrutinised in the other place and that their lordships' views on compensation will reflect the loss that more than 50,000 people will sustain.
The House has not been treated well by the Government. I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. Why did we not have a discussion on the Cullen report and a considered debate following that so that before legislation was drafted the House could have suggested in a considered, sensible and responsible way the best way to proceed? I think that I pick up the words of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West when I say that any violent death—
It being 12 midnight, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 November and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that when you lowered the guillotine on Third Reading, at least six hon. Members who wished to speak were prevented from doing so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to judge how many hon. Members subsequently wished to speak.

ESTIMATES

Ordered,

That this House agrees with the Report [28th November] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Coe.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft African Development Fund (Seventh Replenishment) Order 1996. which was laid before this House on 11th November, he approved.
That the draft International Development Association (Interim Trust Fund) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Coe.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

DEREGULATION

That the draft Deregulation (Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951 (Repeal)) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th November, be approved.—[Mr. Coe.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

WATER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7208/95, relating to drinking water; and endorses the Government's objective of amending the proposal so that it is more in line with the best scientific and medical advice on the appropriate standards for drinking water and to ensure that the benefits resulting from the proposal are more proportional to the costs it would impose.

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7312/96, on aid for reconstruction and rehabilitation in the former Yugoslavia, and endorses the Government's view that it provides a necessary and appropriate base for EU expenditure in the former Yugoslavia, and for the transparency of the EU's actions; and takes note of European Community Document No. 1060296, relating to common principles for future contractual relations with certain countries in south-eastern Europe, and endorses the Government's view that it provides a sensible broad approach for the development of EU relations with the countries concerned—[Mr. Coe.]

Question agreed to.

Kent Capital Challenge

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Despite the lateness of the hour, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to my constituents. I am also grateful to the Minister, who will reply with his usual courtesy.
The debate marks a small milestone in parliamentary history, because it is the first time that the House has debated the capital challenge funding scheme or any bids submitted under it. The fact that the milestone is being passed is not due to any perspicacity on my part; it is simply that the capital challenge fund is completely new. It was born only seven months ago when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a characteristically imaginative move, announced that, over the next three years, £600 million-worth of supplementary approval finance would be made available to help local authorities to fund what were called their top priority capital projects under this new competitive bidding system.
It was also announced that the winners under the bidding system would be those capital projects that were
identified as being of the greatest benefit to their community.
That quotation from the Department of the Environment press release which was issued on 15 May is important. I am delighted by the criteria, because they apply perfectly to Kent county council's capital challenge bid, which was submitted in September under the title "Accessing opportunities in Kent". It is to that subject to which I now turn.
The centrepiece of the Kent bid, which is for £34 million-worth of capital challenge funding, is the Ramsgate harbour approach road, which would cost some £;30.6 million, of which £25.9 million would come from capital challenge support finance. Ramsgate is the principal town in my constituency, and the main engine of economic growth and activity in the town is its harbour.
Port Ramsgate, which is the outer harbour of the town, is a great success story. It is Britain's second biggest cross-channel port, and handles approximately 3.5 million passengers a year, plus more than 450,000 cars and 250,000 freight lorries. Moreover, the new parent company of Port Ramsgate, Holyman-Sally Ferries Ltd., is expanding fast.
On Monday, the port will see the arrival of the first of two brand new £24 million high-tech catamaran fast ferries. They will be a great boost to the port of Ramsgate, because, next year, they will operate on the Ramsgate-Ostend route, with up to 16 extra sailings a day. The company forecasts that the new service will attract to Port Ramsgate an additional 1.5 million passengers, an additional 300,000 cars and an additional 140,000 freight lorries over and above the very substantial annual traffic figures that I quoted a moment ago.
Port Ramsgate is growing, expanding and flourishing, and it is a success story in today's competitive cross-channel marketplace. The unfortunate recent fire in the channel tunnel reminds us that that marketplace must be strong, competitive and diversified. But the Port Ramsgate success story is being held back by one constraint: the lack of a proper port access road.
My purpose in this short debate is to explain to the Government, and particularly to the Ministers who are responsible for picking the winners of this year's capital challenge bids, the reason why Ramsgate deserves—indeed, urgently needs—a harbour approach road. I shall summarise those reasons under five headings: the fair play reasons, the transport reasons, the environmental reasons, the economic reasons and the community reasons.
I can be mercifully brief about the fair play reasons, because I set them out in some detail in a speech I made in the House last Friday, in a debate on tourism. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister has been generous and good enough to read that speech. To summarise my argument as succinctly as possible, however, I shall say only that it is monstrously unfair that Ramsgate should be the only channel port in Britain—or in France or Belgium—not to have an access road separating port traffic from the congested town centre.
Only Ramsgate is discriminated against in that manner, contrary to the pledges given by the Government during the passage of the channel tunnel Acts, that there would be equal rights on the proverbial level playing field for all channel ports. That promise has not yet been delivered.
Eurotunnel—the favourite son—has its spanking new M20, bringing its customers to the terminal entrance, at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. Dover has its M2 and its Jubilee way, which lead traffic straight into the port without troubling the regular traffic and citizens of Dover. Only last week, in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, Dover was granted an extra £40 million to improve the Lydden-Dover section of the M2. Only Ramsgate continues to be left out in the cold. That is not right, it is not fair, and it simply does not make sense in transport terms.
As for the transport reasons, in recent years the Government have recognised in principle the importance of Port Ramsgate by designating the roads to it as part of the trans-European network, and by spending serious sums of taxpayers' money on them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), whom I am glad to see in the Chamber—I know that he hopes to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am grateful, as are our constituents, for the £;180 million that has been spent so far on dualling the A299 Thanet way from the M2 to Monkton and the A253 from Monkton to the outskirts of Ramsgate. The final sections of the project are now close to completion.
Bewilderingly, however, after spending more than £180 million on the first twenty-one and a half miles of the road, the final one and a half miles of that 23-mile road between Port Ramsgate and the beginning of the M2 motorway have been left as a snarling, growling and dangerous bottleneck. Until that one-and-a-half-mile bottleneck is converted into a proper approach road, the situation will remain a senseless example of the "so near, yet so far" syndrome. It is the equivalent of building

Westminster bridge as a four-lane highway, but leaving the last 150 yd of the approach to the Palace of Westminster as an unfinished, single-track cart track.
I now move to the environmental reasons. As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that last mile and a half where we need the harbour approach road is an environmental nightmare. The present juggernaut route goes through the town centre, bisecting a conservation area and passing alongside 250 homes, 107 listed buildings, two schools and 16 hotels, pubs and boarding houses. When I raised the subject in an Adjournment debate last year, I described that part of the port access route as a veritable Dante's "Inferno" of noise, pollution, disruption and danger. Those who live in that part of Ramsgate know that that is not an exaggeration.
I am glad that the Kent capital challenge bid states clearly that one of its main objectives is
to bring environmental benefits to Ramsgate town
as well as to
encourage investment in the town centre and improve conditions for cyclists, pedestrians, businesses and residents as part of the Ramsgate Renaissance initiative".
Mentioning the investment brings me to the economic reasons for the much-needed harbour approach road. Ramsgate is sadly still one of Britain's unemployment black spots, with an unemployment rate of well over 12 per cent., which is not coming down. One light that shines brightly in the somewhat gloomy scene is Port Ramsgate which, according to paragraph 3.21 of the Kent bid document, creates 1,500 jobs—4.5 per cent. of local employment—and generates about £15 million a year for the local economy. That contribution is well recognised and appreciated in Ramsgate.
The lack of a port approach road is holding back local economic growth. The new Kent international business park at Manston, the expanded Haine industrial area and the businesses that are quietly expanding in and around Ramsgate, thanks to the Government's excellent development area status scheme, which has brought much-needed growth to Ramsgate, will all get a boost from a new approach road for the great sea port of Ramsgate. It would be a vote of confidence in the area, not least because, as the Kent bid document says:
the scheme … will have a major impact on increasing local employment opportunities and improving labour market mobility".
Finally, I should like to highlight the community reasons in favour of the Ramsgate harbour access road. I do so with particular emphasis because, as I reminded my hon. Friend the Minister at the start of the debate, his Department's press release at the start of the year, announcing the setting up of the capital challenge scheme, stated that bidders should
target those capital projects that they have identified as being of greatest benefit to their community".
If that is the basis, the Kent bid deserves to be an outstanding runner in the competition and, I hope, a winner. As I have said, it will benefit the community by reducing unemployment and stimulating the economy, by improving the quality of life in environmental terms and by improving local, national and international transport links.
The litmus test of the popularity of the road and of the bid is that the community really wants and has fought for the Ramsgate harbour access road. We live in an age


when new roads are often unpopular with local communities. The Ramsgate harbour access road bucks the trend. With the exception of a small minority of dissenters, the road is popular in the local community. That popularity has been tested by a thorough exercise in local democracy and consultation. Kent county council is to be praised. The bid document notes:
Local democracy has played a key part in the development of the scheme. Three alternative schemes were put out to consultation and there was overwhelming support for the present proposals.
That is an accurate comment.
There is some minority opposition, but even the 10 or 12 home owners in the Pegwell village area who stand to have their houses compulsorily purchased seem to be reconciled to the scheme, provided they receive full and fair compensation for the losses, disruption and inconvenience that they will suffer. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of contemporary Ramsgatonians support the Ramsgate harbour access road and will certainly be supporters of the bid.
Our town of Ramsgate needs and deserves this road. I congratulate Kent county council on putting together a clever and well-argued capital challenge bid. If my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues see the bid in as favourable a light as I hope I have described it, the face of Ramsgate and its economy will change and the town will have a much better future. I commend the capital bid to my hon. Friend and the House.

Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on securing the debate and on the elegant way in which he has made a case in support of Kent's capital challenge bid. I endorse his arguments utterly and whole-heartedly.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the economic importance of Port Ramsgate to the whole of Thanet—to his constituents and mine. The Government, in their wisdom, have shown their confidence in the potential for development in east Kent, and Thanet in particular, through the granting of development status to the Isle of Thanet. That was hard won by the last Conservative council, by the then European Member of the European Parliament, Christopher Jackson, by my right hon. Friend and by me. Working with the Government, we secured the development status and the objective 2 status that the area now enjoys.
As my right hon. Friend has said, the Government have committed tens of millions of pounds to the dualling of Thanet way, taking a road that was little more than a cart track and turning it into, in effect, an extension of the M2, almost down to the sea. With Connex taking over the area's trains, we expect and look forward to better rail communications and new trains. Thanet enjoys the benefits of an airport and the port of Ramsgate in my right hon. Friend's constituency.
Although I would not wish to pretend that £30 million or thereabouts is small beer, we are in some danger of destroying the shipping for a hap'orth of tar. The Thanet way now runs down to the Prospect roundabout and the Lord of the Manor junction in my right hon. Friend's constituency has been dealt with, so it really is time to accept the fact that the jigsaw must be finished.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the fact that the issue has united the community of Thanet. My constituents entirely support his campaign for the completion of the last piece of the vital road. The issue has united not just the community but the political parties in an exceptional way. Politicians of all parties at every level—local councillors, county councillors, both Members of Parliament and the Member of the European Parliament—are as one in believing that the project is vital to the area and must be completed.
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend when he stressed the importance of the events of 18 November and after relating to the channel tunnel and the French strikes that so badly affected the channel ports on the French side of the channel. The Ramsgate to Ostend service was a lifeline for the commerce of this country during that period. The fire in the tunnel demonstrated the fragility of that piece of transport infrastructure. Without the ferries, this island would be isolated. I doubt that there could have been a more graphic example of that than the events of 18 November.
Although, as my right hon. Friend has said, millions of pounds have been spent on infrastructure serving the tunnel, one piece of road has been left incomplete. The Kent capital challenge bid is essential to the future of east Kent. My right hon. Friend cited the description from the capital challenge prospectus that bids should be for projects of
the greatest benefit to the community".
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can think of no greater benefit to an entire community and its economy than the Ramsgate harbour approach road proposed in the bid.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on using this opportunity to press the case for Kent's capital challenge bid and I was not surprised that he was joined by his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
This evening, Thanet has the full team out putting pressure on, as it has on many other causes. It must have had some success, because I have discovered the extent of public funding for Thanet in the past three years.
Thanet has received £12.7 million from regional selective assistance, with a further £80 million levered in. In the first EU objective 2 programme, £7.3 million was allocated to projects. A further £3.7 million is carried forward, along with the prospect of £14 million awaiting approval from the second objective 2 programme. In addition, £9 million was allocated to the regeneration of Thanet under round 1 of the single regeneration budget. The Thanet Regeneration Partnership has submitted a bid for a further £7.6 million from round 3 of the SRB. Thanet also benefits from funding under the EU Interreg Community initiative and it will be eligible for a share of the £15 million allocated to Kent under a further programme of co-operation with Nord-Pas de Calais.
The funding for Thanet is a mark of the pressure that has been applied, and I am feeling the effect of that this evening. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet knows and mentioned, earlier this year the Government announced the capital challenge scheme to


explore how best the principles of competition could be brought to bear on the distribution of Government support for local authorities' capital spending. Those principles have already been applied successfully in other areas of public expenditure, the single regeneration budget being one of the obvious examples.
Authorities were invited to bid for their highest capital spending priorities drawn from their overall capital expenditure plan. That invitation is along lines that a Chief Secretary would applaud and we have heard support for it this evening—or rather, this morning. The Government offices for the regions have received more than 300 bids and we estimate that about three quarters of principal authorities have bid for £1.5 billion over three years. That is two and a half times the £600 million available from the fund, but the authorities expect to lever in an additional £2.6 billion of private and public sector funding, which is what the whole system is about.
Kent county council's capital challenge bid, "Accessing Opportunities in Kent", consists of two projects —first, the Ramsgate harbour access road and, secondly, Kent access. The case for those projects has been put clearly by my right hon. and hon. Friends this evening. The pressure applied on the case has outranked that in any other area and, if there was any doubt that my Department would not take notice of the bid, it has been dispelled.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware, it is now a matter of "watch this space". We are certainly aware of the points which they have made and they have, as ever, added interest to the debate. Ministers in the Department of the Environment have been left in no doubt about the strength of the support for the bid but, as my right hon. and hon. Friends will appreciate, they must wait until the announcement of the result of the bidding process later this month.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Twelve midnight.